Yep. There is only one reason to make that comment. Nastiness. And those who make it never seem to ask themselves why they have bought The Poor Man's Nautilus or Royal Oak. They fixate on that one particular company as a mark of success, completely (and conveniently) ignoring the very large number of very much better watches that are a lot more expensive than theirs. In short, there are a lot of not-nice people out there and they all seem to congregate around one brand. Which does absolutely nothing for that brand at all.
You hit the nail on the head. A Fake Rolex is the poor man's Rolex. Buying a watch should be an exercise in personal preference and choice, not an exercise in social psychology. I love my Tudor and the only downside to it so far is owning a watch that will always be subject to comparisons and social psychological baggage associated with Rolex and those who view it as a badge more than a wristwatch.
I agree wholeheartedly. This is not just another RUclips channel for watch geeks. This channel sets aside exuberance and fanboy fluff in favor of analysis and insights based on facts, features, brand comprehension and market realities. Every time you watch a video from this RUclipsr you feel as though you come away with knowledge to help you make a better decision on your next purchase.
Thoughtful analysis, nicely done! To an extent, there is a bit of Thinking Man's Rolex in Tudor. I have a blue BB58. I bought it because I really like it, yes, but it embodies so much of what people used to buy Rolex for. Solid build, good finish, everything works well from the bezel to the movement to the lume. Nothing it doesn't need, nothing flashy: it's practical, versatile, durable. These are the things that people who've had their Rolex for decades value in their watch. Today Rolex has become a different beast and a more costly one.
Thanks! Appreciated. Also tend to agree - tudor, for some at least, embodies something that Rolex no longer does - some level of authenticity. Good perspective - thanks for sharing 😀
People used to buy Rolex because they were well built, reliable and able to take a beating. These days If you want a reliable well built watch you get a G Shock. For diving you get a dive watch, nobody is doing serious dives with automatic watches nor are they climbing Mt Everest or hunting Elephants with them unless it's as a piece of jewelry and you got the sherpa or game warden keeping track of the time.
Just watched 2 of your videos. Very good quality - a lot of information and analysis, and no sensational stuff or use of graphics to attract attention. Subscribed!
I used to think of Tudor as second fiddle to Rolex years ago. As of now I have multiple Omegas and `TUDORS` in my rotation. In the beginning I self I posed a limit on the amount of money I would spend on a piece. Example; I have a Tudor BB chrono reverse panda that I prefer over a Daytona or a Speedmaster. Can I afford a Rolex? Yes but I prefer the Tudor regardless of price. Bottom line, Tudor IS NOT my watch because I'm can't buy a Rolex. I simply am more attracted to what Tudor is offering now days.
I own a couple of luxury watches but I still wear a Casio from time to time. Depends on the mood. Just because he owns omega's doesn't mean he can't buy anything cheaper that he like? You would also get as good a watch for half the price of an omega. 50% of the cost is purely branding. Is an omega seamaster worth 2.5x the price of an Oris aquis 300? No it's not. Quality is on par
I own an Omega SM300 and still wear my Longines and Rado watches, which are dressier watches. For me it’s about my mood and outfit that determines what watch I wear.
I own two Rolex and two Tudor, in my 13 watch collection, I never have never thought I purchased a Tudor because I can’t afford a Rolex, I purchased every watch because It was what I wanted ..
I have the OP39 sitting next to my beloved and very underrated (even in this video not mentioned) Tudor Style 38 (black on stainless steel). Both of them sitting next to each other in my box. No poor feelings on the Tudor but also no rich feelings on the Rolex. I only see two strong brands and two strong watches there! Great video!! Great comparisons, thoughts and ideas!
That’s right, it’s not a poor man’s Rolex it’s a suckers Rolex. Just save you’re money and buy the real thing, or at least buy a good looking and special watch like an seamaster. Don’t be impatient and settle for a black bay.
I own 7 Tudor and 7 Rolex watches. Is a Tudor a poor man's Rolex? No, it's a watch I can buy and more importantly, they are producing innovative watches that I can buy when I want to buy them, which is a bit of a curse as I have not been able to buy a Rolex in 3 years because no one will sell me one. So I buy Tudor from the AD that used to sell me Rolex, win win for them, they are a great bunch.
@@Greygoose3130 that’s the point here in the U.K. it’s not possible unless I spend £10k on shit I don’t want. I would rather spend that money on “beater” watches or more correctly tool watches as the gentleman that put together this excellent analysis noted. A friend has finally go her Air King, to be put on the list she had to buy a £5000 Omega, lovely watch but 5k nonetheless. Gets a call six months later for a date just on a Wimbledon dial, very nice but not the watch she wanted, she takes it on the basis that she wants an air king. Gets the call but is out of the country so I collect the watch for her, the AD want’s her to purchase a “little” piece. I get to the store, it’s the salesman’s day off so I deal with his colleague who tells me a “little” piece should be £2k, did not have to consult friend and that was a hard no, you want another £2k for an Air King! She wanted earrings at £850. Deal was done. Seriously this shit is what it is but thank god Rolex is increasing supply and the grey market is back to semi reality.
Remember the old days? Six years back when brands like Cartier and Omega had to buy back stock that had flooded the market, and you could still get a discount on a datejust (I got 11% off one in 2017)? Those were the days when consumers had the watchmakers and ADs by the short and curlies…. Thanks for contributing 😀💪
@@Mike.thiswatchthatwatch the only time I got a discount was when I did not ask for it in Saudi Arabia, was not a lot but nice to have, this was on a hulk. Most of the stuff I have I never had to wait for, saw it in the window and just wandered in.
Really excellent analysis! I honestly bought my Tudor GMT because I yearned for a true GMT that harkened back to days gone buy when the GMT Master was used as a tool and not jewelry. I couldn’t afford an older model and was worried it would be destroyed if used day to day. I was on the wait list for a new model but got impatient. I decided to get the Tudor because it was the absolute closest I could get to my fondness for the Fat Lady GMT Master of my birth year p, while still being usable every day. I am so glad I did. My fondness for Tudor is apparent in my collection. I now have three and honestly have ZERO yearning for a Rolex at all anymore. Except for one…..just one. Also the only thing that I thought was missing from the video was the SkyDweller……and the Tudor counterpart? Really amazing video. Be well
100% agree. I have always loved the classic Rolex GMT either Coke or Pepsi. The newer Rolex GMT with the ceramic bezels and extra polishing in its finish just does not do it for me. I would have loved an old classic Rolex GMT but they are very expensive I found the Tudor Black Bay GMT and I was sold it was exactly what I was looking for....love the watch.
I'm in the same club. I like the subdued colors on the Tudor's bezel, and I'm going to say it, the Rolex is overpriced. If it were like $7,000 and had less of a bejeweled appearance, absolutely. But that ain't the case.
Rolex is now the poor man's Patek. Tudor is now the unpretentious man's Rolex. Its more tool oriented, high quality and a great value. This is exactly what made Rolex's reputation in the past (plus some clever marketing). Rolex is now desperately trying to go upmarket. As if they have some kind of inferiority complex vs. the haute horlogerie brands like Patek, AP, and Vacheron. They're now doing open case backs with more movement finishing and the 1908 is nothing more than a Calatrava homage. I think they've betrayed their tool watch origins and the DNA that made them so great. Rolex is nothing but a lifestyle brand now. I have several Tudors and many more Rolexes (all bought before the hype). Do I wear my Sea-Dweller 4K when I dive? No, I wear my Pelagos. Do I wear my Explorer II 42mm or my GMT Master II when I travel? No, I wear the BBPro or BBGMT. The Tudors get much more wrist time in almost all situations. Why? Because they give off a different vibe. More tool-like and not flashy jewelry. No hype, no status-symbol, no bling bling.
@@halfsourlizard9319 80% of American citizens do not have a spare $1,000. A quarter of UK citizens live in poverty. Millions of kids in The (used-to-be) First World go to bed hungry.
Fantastic video. You just reminded me of why I (very recently) subscribed to your channel! Very informative and non-judgmental commentary. This watch debate has been around as long as I can remember. I have a Rolex DeepSea, but given how much it's appreciated in value I rarely wear it. Recently I've been looking at alternatives that I can drive daily and ended up landing on Seiko (bought an SSK001 and SSC911), but I can honestly say after watching this video that a Tudor GMT might be in my not-so-distant future. 😃 Keep up the great content. Cheers!
Another wonderful and insightful analysis. Lots of food for thought from many different intresting angles that I would never have considered. The video editing is also superb!!! I'm delighted that I found this channel!!! In my mind you have proven that Tudor has it's own design language, distinct from Rolex and it should be seen as such.
I own a Submariner and a Datejust, and 3 years ago I bought my first Tudor, a Pelagos. Of the three watches, I wear the Pelagos daily. It’s more accurate than either Rolex and it looks great. Naturally people comment more about the Rolexes, because they’re Rolexes. But I simply prefer the Tudor, it has a beautiful blue dial and bezel, compared to the black dial/bezel of the s/s Sub, and champagne dial of the Datejust, and it’s a two-tone s/s-18k yg, which I hardly wear anymore. I’d probably wear it more if it was white gold.
At the end of the day, it's about what you like. My favorite watch (currently - that changes all the time) is NOT my most expensive or "high status" watch. It's a lowly Seiko.... Thanks for sharing 😀😀😀
Agree have bought one in last November it’s the Pelagos LHD love it such a cool watch don’t like the newer version it looks more cheap made lume it’s poor than the last versions wish I’ve not made the same mistake every one does … and wait to buy that specific model instead buying other brands at the end when you start making maths you spent more money on models that you just buy it because you saw a RUclipsr making a review bla bla bla … All that said we need to follow the “cheep’s 😂 today went to a Tudor AD try some Tudor chronos the panda , reverse and the tow tone and when you saw it on a review they look great all that said my opinion aiaiaiaiai 8200€ for the Two tone really 🤔… Have Hanhart Pioneer Mark II used to like it and know it’s on the box , bought a Longines Hydroconquest chronograph in 2016 aiaiaiaia like it accurate but rather at time saw those Tudor before but weren’t available not even an AD now all AD’s full of them but prices are crazy for nothing special watch … that’s my opinion and now I’m in a cross road situation should I wait for next April Geneve Watch and Wonders …???? I bet they will raise prices plus new models will show up this is an expensive disease! I’ll gone wait some will start showing up pre-owned for sure money talks ! Always!
Very thoughtful and well analyzed.. I really like your conclusion on this. Ultimately buy what you want if you like the Tudor and the value proposition suits you then go for it. If you really want a Rolex you gotta get one. To me the poor man’s Rolex makes no sense because Tudor has its own identity, it’s not a Rolex « replacement » and never will be.
Sigh. It’s such a stupid statement. Tudor use vintage Rolex as their blueprint (usually models that are iconic and unobtainable by any standard) and they have moved into Rolex’s former price segment. It is therefore more accurate to say that modern Tudor is the OLD Rolex, and that vintage Tudor was the working class Rolex, as Hans Wildorf intended
My Tudor Black Bay 41 Monochrome was my first luxury watch purchase, and I was able to get it literally 1 day after it came out at my local Tudor boutique. I saw the reveal online on April 9, could not stop drooling, went into the boutique on April 10, tried it on, and was able to buy it that evening. It was such a great experience and made me feel like a valued customer. This would never happen with Rolex. Never ever.
If you can afford endless watch collections ,,,, have Rolex and Tudor. However, when you've attained a great achievement in life, Rolex. Success screams Rolex. Rappers, new young sports stars, your mom, and the Gen-Z'er with all their AI gadgets all know what a Rolex is. I bet not even half have heard of Tudor. It is sort of like: If you want a great car, buy a Toyota. If you want a better great car, buy a Lexus. If I can only afford one luxury watch, its a Rolex, not a Tudor. Ps... I just bought a gorgeous GS Sky Flake Spring Drive a few months ago, and I have a feeling my AD will be calling me soon to pick up a Roli GMT Master 2, 40mm, two tone yellow rolesor, jubilee..... STOKED!!! After that I think I'm done..... (maybe done.... because I saw a cool Christopher Ward and a beautiful red-dial Formax).... Cool story: my "get hands dirty elegant tank" is a Tissot diver I bought 28 years ago. I was blading down an insane hill in the mid-90s and was going so fast the chassis could not stabilize my wheels. Needless to say I bailed pretty hard and earned some road rash (lucky I did not die during one of many young and stupid episodes). However, I should have busted my wrist, but my Tissot Diver literally saved my wrist from being busted; hence, my Elegant Tank. They don't make 'em like they used to!
Watching your videos is an intellectual experience in horology and I love it. Coming back to this video after the latest video on Tudor’s future. A couple points from a different perspective: 1. Tudor watches feel more like Old Rolexes than innovative or new. For instance, BB aluminium bezels look similar to old Subs especially the font. BB41 jubilee is old Datejust Jubilee. BB GMT has quite the traits of 70s 80s Pepsi. Ranger borrows heavily from old Explorer (but is even more dull) 2. Tudor is limited in the quality it can offer because the better stuff is for Rolex’s catalogue. Don’t think they will even be even allowed to release a watch that’s more accurate or has better materials or the elite finishing and applied indices of Rolex. Now this is by no means a price point bottle neck. This is just that they are below Rolex in their conglomerate and that positioning makes it the Cheaper (price and quality) offering from Rolex group for me even though not Entirely a Cheaper version of Rolex’s current catalogue. Point to note, their Pepsi type GMT, jubilee type bracelets and vintage Sub vibes from BB do step in Rolex territory and might be seen as Cheaper Rolex alternatives adding to the weight on its ankles and reason for the tag.
It seems to me that tudor listen to the customer and offer much better variations in colour and sizing. As an owner of both I think rolex could learn from tudor. Imagine if rolex released a submariner variation in bb58 proportions, people would loose their minds.
Tend to agree - Rolex doesn’t at least seem to give an impression of listening to the customer in the same way that Tudor does. There’s less distance, it seems between Tudor and the end customer Cheers 😀
Rolex knows that treating us mean will keep us keen. I don't particularly like the look of modern Submariners, but somehow in my mind, I feel like I need to buy one. Genius marketing.
Both Tudor and Rolex are aspirational and milestone brands, if you can afford a Tudor then you can probably afford a Rolex. Tudor is there as a gateway drug while you wait for your Rolex. If you get Tudor because you want a Tudor then its fine, but if your buying a Tudor because you wanted a Rolex then its just a mistake.
I honestly don't like Tudor, not because I think that they're a bad watch (because they're very good watches) but because they don't exist in a vacuum. With watches that are as good or better from brands like Mido, Tissot, Longines, Christopher Ward and Oris costing the same or less, Tudor clearly becomes a brand that is inflated by its association with Rolex. I see this a lot when people try to compare Tudor with Omega against whom it falls completely flat. I look at a Tudor and I see a Tissot Seastar 1000, Mido Ocean Star or Longines HydroConquest that costs far more than it should. It's able to get away with the higher pricing because some people think of it as "A Rolex without the Rolex name on it" which is as stupid as saying that a Longines is "An Omega without the Omega name on it". I look at Tudor as "A Rolex-endorsed homage brand" and while I don't have anything against homage watches per se, I don't think that they deserve to command high prices.
This is a pretty bad take. If you can’t look and see the objective differences between a Longines or Tissot and a Tudor, then you can’t look and see the objective difference between a Tudor and an Omega, because they are as stark. Tudor simultaneously leans into its heritage as a more accessible way to buy the Rolex aesthetic, and also as a way to take Rolex-inspired risks in a way that Rolex never could. The prices aren’t there because people think it’s basically a Rolex, the prices aren’t there because Tudor dominates the $3,500-$5,500 market. No one else is making a better watch than Tudor in that range. Neither in some of the “Rolex replays” like the new BB58 GMT nor in some of their new innovations with the Pelagos line.
Very well thought review of this topic. Personally, I don't see Tudor as a "poor man's" Rolex. If someone wants a Rolex, no amount of Tudor can satisfy that feel. Tudor by itself, regardless of being a subsidiary of Rolex, makes very desirable watches. Both Rolex and Tudor are going to coexist within any watch enthusiast's growing collection.
Having the privilege of owning watches from both houses, you summation, I feel is pretty accurate! As you quote “dare to be different”. They seem to have managed to do this pretty well. However, Rolex’s dabbing in the Ti materials I believe will open up more Ti options in the future line up! The Explorer 2 in Ti will be my grail. 😂 great content, keep it up! Tot die volgende keer.
I just purchased the Black Bay 41 with the burgundy bezel and the METAS certified movement. I love it. It’s a fantastic watch for the money. Great channel.
Tudor was literally made for regular working people. I'm a regular working person. Picking up a used BB or GMT is totally attainable for me. And with Rolex being owned by every idiot in Silicon Valley, the AD games, etc....
Great analysis. I know that almost everyone who I’ve met at my Tudor AD’s events also owns 1 or more Rolexes. But they own more Tudors because they are the obtainable Rolex. Much shorter waits. 2024 will be interesting to see if one of your assertions - Tudor can do their own thing as long as they make money - is true. My salesperson told me there will be a lot of things customers have been requested released next April.
I have a Cayman, and I agree. I could have bought a 991, but I chose to buy a Cayman because I liked the way it drove better, and it didn't feel like it was the size of a 1970's Cadillac LOL.
While I have already commented, another interesting question might be regarding Rolex’s role among luxury brand watches, since it has a much lower entry price level than AP, for example. It is also mass produced in numbers far greater than the AP or Pateks of the world. Rolex is closer to Omega in this regard. With changing demographics, it makes little sense to call Tudor an Everyman watch, while not a watch that could compete in the most exclusive end of the industry’s offerings. It would be interesting to know what the price levels between Rolex and Tudor were when Tudor was first introduced. Also, it will be interesting to see what happens fo the Rolex brand when its new factory comes on board and it can turn out another million watches a year.
Tudor is young man's Rolex. A young man who didn't inherit an old Rolex, so he either wants something new and interesting, or something new that looks old.
@@Mike.thiswatchthatwatch i Have Rolex and Tudor in my collection. Even Jack Mason. I buy what i like PERIOD!!!!!!!!!I will not pay over retail for the Rolex that why i buy the full gold rolex as i can get under retail.
Tudor has enabled Rolex to get into the higher almost unobtainable "list" league. Tudor becoming the clear second choice and soon-to-be direct competitor to Omega. It's ingenious market placement as it will inflate Rolex to new positions, protecting the brand, whilst Tudor sweep up after those that cannot afford or (more relevantly) cannot obtain a Rolex! However, Tudors manufacturing is very strong and could arguably outshine both Rolex and Omega if they continue with their combined level of development, quality and affordability... Especially considering their aim to gradually make the BB line METAS over the next few years.
HHmm....Tudor's reliability problems have stopped me from buying them in the last couple of years. And the closeness of a GS boutique. The last time I went into a Rolex place, it was, as usual. full of gold and diamond-encrusted watches that nobody wanted. And there was ONE steel, Datejust with plain bezel and oyster bracelet. I tried it and was utterly unmoved. A truly boring watch for a totally unreasonable amount of money. As I discussed it with SWMBO, an actual queue formed behind me to try it on. We left hurriedly. If we had had all the money in the world on that day, we would not have bought it. I haven't been in a Rolex place since.
Long story short, YES. Price point, target market and availability as well as it was literally produced and priced as a "poor man's" Rolex, which was the as-referenced intention of Hans Wilsdorf in his direct quote.
Who says Tudor is a poor mans Rolex? It´s only in comments on the internet in forums, facebook, youtube, etc...on watch related subjects.....just ignore it, we all know that more than 50% who give comments on these platforms are idiots or people who have the need to always spread negative shit....in real life nobody will tell you Tudor is a poor mans Rolex.....99,9 % of all people don´t care about watches.....and the 0,1% watch nerds out there they know their shit and will appreciate if they see a Tudor in the wild,
Tudor has never been a poor man's Rolex. I'm a poor man and I could never afford a Tudor. Christ, that's even more expensive than my car. I love watches but it's a rich man's game really.
It’s incredible how many people honestly believe that a Tudor is a cheap homage to rolex and the same people believe Rolex is the pinnacle of watch making 🤣 90% or rolex wearers know nothing about watches and it’s purely bragging rights amongst equally clueless people. I’m lucky enough to have two Rolex; two omega, a Tudor and a Habring2. The Habring destroys them all but these Tudor haters won’t know what a Habring2 is.
Rolex is a status symbol. If owning a Rolex becomes someone's life goal, no chance that he or she will buy a Tudor because it is cheaper. That said, I own a BB36 and I bought it on purpose as a poor man's Rolex. I wanted a robust and well finished shiny timepiece that made me think of an first explorer. Great analysis on the Omega product range. the overlap could have been a video on itself. I like your take on the "born to dare". Actually it's "Dare to be different in the marketing".
Thanks - really appreciate the feedback. Have recently done a whole “the trouble with omega video” you could check out. As for the BB36 - Had one until my wife took it over. She loves it and I’m unfortunately likely never getting it back. 😂 Thanks for contributing 😀😀
Another great video. I think the simply answer is the relaunched Tudor allows Rolex to raise its prices while protecting its rear from the likes of Omega etc. Another interesting thought experiment is to compare how the Swatch group uses Longines vis-à-vis Omega, versus how Rolex uses Tudor. Lots of differences, but I wonder if there might be more similarity than first meets the eye.
Good point. Swatch and their group of firms are definitely not identical in nature to the Tudor & Rolex relationship, but Swatch definitely does tier their brands and the moonswatch is proof that they would love the brands to interact and be stepping stones between each other as peoples finances develop 😀
If you want a quality Swiss watch then you look at Tudor. If you want a technically better Swiss watch than a Rolex you look at Omega. If you want a user friendly Swiss watch then look at Rolex. That's my opinion and no way is a Tudor a poor man's Rolex and that's because they are still expensive. You can get a very nice second hand car for a price of a Tudor.
A poor man cannot afford a Tudor or any other luxury watch. We tend to see a watch that costs around 3000 to 4000 USD or Euros as an entry level luxury watch. We live in a bubble that's for sure.
Once again, another home run. Thank you for presenting the comparison in such a universally understandable way. As someone not that bothered about Rolex (even though I would have a root beer any day), I wasn't aware of their horizontal and vertical offerings demarcation. It's been great to learn something new about a brand. In a strange way, Tudor now stands out to me as a brand I'd like to explore in more detail. Conversely, Omega somehow comes across scattered, desperate, and unpredictably incoherent in its design language. Finally, all this tells us is that one man's choice is another's avoidance, and THAT is what makes horology such a rewarding hobby, passion, or fashion statement. It's all about choice, and there is plenty for every taste or whim.
Great video. As a Tudor owner and huge fan I really enjoyed your perspective. I agree with most everything you said. I would like to add something that I find frustrating. They say “poor” man’s Rolex. I don’t know too many poor men buying $5000+ watches. I choose to buy them because I like them, they are available ( with waiting lists where I live) and I enjoy them. Not because they are cheep. I know $5000 isn’t expensive in the watch world but poor people aren’t buying them. Sorry long winded. Great video
I think you nailed it here, down to the differences in corporate culture. Tudor is much more daring. I expect to buy a Pelagos in titanium as the ultimate diving tool watch. It's almost funny how Tudor managed to remove anything dressy from the design. I can imagine the designers and engineers cheering each removal. I hear from others that it is also is a fabulous watch to take ... diving, a sport I enjoy.
Tudor should have built on the North Flag, because it was a fantastic tool watch that had nothing in common with Rolex. It dared to be different. Your content is highly informative and balanced.
Is Tudor a poor man's Rolex? A watch is a tool and its primary job is to tell time. As much as possible, we want that time to be communicated to us as accurate as possible. But, when you can get a $20 Casio quartz or a Casio Gshock Multiband 6 watch synchronize to atomic clocks around the world, it will out perform a Rolex, Tudor or Omega....etc, so why is this topic of rich vs poor so contentious? At the end of the day, a $20,000 watch can be beaten by a watch you can get at Walmart. Of course I do understand, luxurious craftsmanship, heritage and all that glitz and glamour...but bottom line, its job is to tell time. What do a rich man and a poor man's watch have it common....their watches tell time. You can praise a luxury mechanical watch for hours and hours....you can rhapsodize and write a poem about the deep emotional connection you have of it, but at the end, its job to tell time can be beaten by a quartz. As a collector of both mechanical and quartz watches, I don't get caught up about the perception of rich vs poor time pieces. Just wear what you like and enjoy it.
I got my BB pro because it's a great watch and fantastic value for the money , it's my daily watch I prefer Tudor more than Rolex as Tudor I feel is much more in line with my personality and I like the more rugged feel of Tudor tool watches.
Labelling a Tudor watch as a "poor man's Rolex" is no more than a crude pejorative of Hans Waldorf's "idea of making a watch that our agents could sell at a more modest price than our Rolex watches." My late father owned a Rolex Explorer. While I admire the quality and attention to craftsmanship of today's Rolex line of watches, the Rolex Explorers of his day were much more accessible. Thank you for another thoughtful analysis. Subscribed. Cheers.
0:56 People are also idiots though. Quibbling over who's poor based on the brand they like. It's why you should take everyones comments with a grain of salt.
The only problem with tudor is that it looks exactly like a rolex. That starts the conversation of why didn't you just buy Rolex? If Tudor was very different from Rolex, it would have its own niwhere people can say it is a sister company of Rolex.
😂 exactly!!! Right???? The problem with Tudor is it's pretending to be a Rolex! If it were like longines with its own designs there wouldn't be that constant nagging issue , why didn't you get a Rolex!😂 And don't get me started with sycophants telling me, why does it look like a Rolex???😂 OMG!
Thank you for creating watch related content, which I find to be unusually thoughtful and interesting. With this in mind I was a little surprised to see the “let’s pooh-pooh Hublot” in the beginning of this video. Perhaps you simply don’t like the brand. That’s OK. But do they really deserve all the hate they receive? Why are they so successful if the suck so badly? (Because Hublot is very successful, it seems to me.) I would be intrigued to see a video from you on Hublot where you turn your analytical skills in this direction. In any event, keep up the good work!
Ha. I actually put the comment in is a bit of a joke (That didn’t land well) because it’s kind of the opinion you’re supposed to have as a watch nerd of Hublot I did a review of the fusion where I touch quite a bit on the views on Hublot and whether the criticism is fair ruclips.net/video/fqhF8SLo6pc/видео.html Have considered doing a full Hublot analysis - They’re doing some interesting stuff Cheers 😀
@@Mike.thiswatchthatwatch Thanks for the reply. I have to admit to some embarrassment that I was not aware of this video, which puts a finger on a reason for the animosity held towards Hublot: low perceived value of Hublot (Fusion), which also involves a sense of unoriginality of the case design. My apologies. Are these concerns enough to rationalize the internet shit storm? Maybe they are. Whatever the case Hublot has made interesting choices with regard to marketing and product placement (as far as I can tell) so I hope you find the time for a full Hublot analysis at some point.
No need to apologise. Binging 50 of my videos in one go is an ask, I won’t make of any viewer 😂😂😂 Just stick around for other videos, is all I hope for 😀😀
I appreciate your remarkable knowledge and thoughtful, original content. I also appreciate that you look at each watch and evaluate each on its merits. I cannot afford a Rolex. However, I followed your advice and bought a Tudor Palagos 42mm and am absolutely thrilled with the watch. My brother is a Rolex fan and when we get together, I do not feel like i am wearing a copy of his watch nor a lower cost substitute. I drive a Mazda because I can afford a Mazda. I would probably like to drive a BMW but that desire does not diminish my appreciation for the Mazda which I believe is an excellent car for my needs and budget. Thank you for your superb analysis and mastery of your subject. I looked at the subject of most of your videos (which I am watching slowly but surely!) and I did not find a video regarding advice on creating a modest watch collection. Now that I have a tool watch, I don’t watch another, and another tool watch. Where do I go from here? I would like something very different, perhaps a Tag Heuer Monaco. I have purchased a few watches because as a retiree, I have always loved watches and enjoy wearing them and looking at them each day and I am not getting younger. A watch represents the zenith of art and engineering that builds on a global history of development and purpose. I don’t want to sell them, I want to enjoy them until I stop functioning! Thank you so very much.
Yet another excellent analytical presentation! I'm so glad you do my thinking for me. (Wouldn't want to play chess against you!) Now, how about a similar analysis on Grand Seiko? A brand I love, but have numerous issues with!
Lol... Thanks 😀😂😂 Grand Seiko. There is a video in the works, but I'm still wrapping my head around them. Those kinds of deep dive vids take some time for me to get right 😀😀
Yes. It’s an overpriced knock off of an overpriced original that people settle for because the Original won’t sell to them because they are not spending enough at their AD, so in a genius move, they have convinced people to buy an ugly and thick, but still shockingly expensive version of a watch they can’t get. You can hate this take but You’re mad because it’s true.
Once again I find myself caught by the Mike vortex. Awesome analysis, as usual. The BB54 is my "reachable grail" by some miles. What a work of art. I love Tudor - particularly because it remains democratic and afordable (hope that won't change). Money aside, put the BB54 next to any Rolex and I'd pick the former. Now, put money on the conversation and I'd go for the latter - but just so I could buy myself the 54 and a Seamaster, haha.
Tudor is a between 3-5k mostly. At that price range it has little competition in build quality. I believe they know their place in the market and deliver arguably the best watch for your money at it's price.
Honestly, I learned more from this video about the Rolex/Tudor relationship than I have during the last 35 years of being both a Rolex and a Tudor watch collector/enthusiast ☺ Thanks a lot!
Excellent analysis…quite insightful…answered some questions I had, and confirmed some of my own thoughts. I don’t consider Tudor to be the poor man’s Rolex at all, and you’ve pretty much perfectly explained why. However, some people will continue to refer to it as such either out if envy or because they’re bragging.
I wish Tudor would change the hour hand it looks like a child designed it with scissors and paper. That’s probably the biggest thing that stops me buying a Tudor or Rolex of that kind. Oh and the cost too 😂
No ways, that is what separates Tudor from every other watch, besides, it looks great. I have had Rolexes and Tudors, I like both hour hands, but Tudor's much more.
Even people who can afford Rolex can’t buy Rolex. Their a factory watch anyway. Don’t get me wrong, I’d buy one if I could find an AD that would sell me one.. I bought a $6,990 AUD Tudor Pelagos 42 recently and LOVE IT!
Very well stated. I really enjoy these educational videos you produce. I like Tudors , especially the older ones like the Prince oyster... Thank you for your informative analysis of both Tudor & Rolex.
A very thoughtful and detailed analysis. I like your intelligent approach to this age old debate. Unfortunately there are too many unintelligent people that will always judge a book by it's cover. I am an owner and big fan of both brands. Rolex marketing has always been in my subconscious since birth. However I had never considered or even heard of Tudor until they relaunched the original BB 41 in 2012. For me, I am attracted to Tudor for two reasons which may be considered the reason it is a poor man's alternative. Affordability and availability. But they're not the exclusive reasons for me to buy Tudor. I liked the Rolex designs of the 1980s and the pre ceramic era when I was growing up and reading Nat Geo magazines with Rolex ads that inspired me to want to own them. Tudor's introduction of vintage inspired designs allows me to scratch that itch without breaking the bank. I think, although I hate the term a 'poor man's Rolex' there's truth in that statement no matter how I look at it. But it all depends on the individual's experience and perspective of these brands. You could call an Omega Seamaster or Speedmaster a poor man's Rolex. As I'm sure many watch collectors have purchased an Omega as an alternative or in regret of not being able to buy a Sub or Daytona at retail.....So is Omega a poor man's Rolex more so than Tudor?? Perhaps that may be an interesting psychological debate and a good title for your next video, albeit a controversial one.
That’s a strong point - Rolex is so dominant, so desirable that for many brands Tudor, Omega especially you could make the case that they are fall back or “poor mans” Rolexes. The next couple of vids are going to avoid Omega, Tudor and Rolex if possible to coveri something a little out of the mainstream for a change 😉😀
I agree with what most people have already stated in the comments. Tudor is "not" a poor man's Rolex. Sure, when Tudor was created in 1946, that statement may have had some meaning to it. Afterall, the founder of Rolex did intend for Tudor to be the affordable alternative. But those days are long over! Now days, a Tudor watch costs way more money than the average person would ever think about spending on a watch (if they even wear a watch). Personally, I think of Tudor as what Rolex once was! Their sport's models can be viewed as toolish, while having very nice aesthetics in a quality Swiss build. Of course, they obviously share some of Rolex's DNA too. But they don't carry the baggage of a Rolex. And that works nice for Tudor!
Let's take a direct quote from the founder of both companies, completely discard it, and replace it with our own idea. This must be such a great way to live. Just throw out whatever someone says, no matter who they are, and replace it with your own ideas. You can just tailor reality to however you like it. The freedom this must bring! You can live in your own delusional world forever.
Microsoft founder Bill Gates said in the early 80s that the mission for MS was to have a PC on every desk and in every home in the world. That's not their mission anymore. Steve Jobs insisted that a Pen for the iPad would be over his dead body. He was fundamentally against it. So I agree. Founders go. Things change. Missions change. Thanks for contributing 😃😃
Another great video! So glad I found your channel. I actually prefer Tudor because of the fact that many don't know of it's association with Rolex. The Rolex brand just doesn't fit with my personality and desire to not draw attention to myself.
They are a poor man’s Rolex because most people that are dropping $4-6K on a Tudor at an AD know it’s owned Rolex and it’s a factor in why they choose it, even above it’s price competitors like Omega, which I find baffling, but precisely because of its Rolex association. In all, just on a $4-6K watch and it’s competitors in its price range (IWC, Omega, etc.), I think they are overpriced for the quality they offer. They are good watches , but should be competing more with Sinn, Oris, Longines. I think there’s a lot of personal introspection that watch lovers need to have as to why they buy the brands they buy. If you care even slightly that a friend will recognize the brand on your wrist, just save up for a Rolex. Because 99% of people know Rolex as apposed to the 10% that know a Tudor, Omega, etc.
Tudor watches a quite a bit cheaper than Omega and IWC they are not trying to compete with either. Tudor have found a niche price bracket that sits just above Longines and beneath Omega and they are cleaning up.
@michaelthomas527 - Agree. They are priced closer to Longines than Omega and have been knockikg it out of the park compared to Longines (considering how much they get talked about relative to Longines size) No doubt there’s also an emotional component to watch buying as well that catches “brand perception” And yeah - They’ve been doing a really good job Cheers 😀
The Tudor Chronograph is arguably one of the best looking chronos on the market. And built every bit as well as a Daytona and a better, more masculine size.
Some people take pleasure in badmouthing other people's stuff. It's the same with Porsche 911 and the Cayman, and the later is for the same type of people a poor man/womans Porsche - or even a hairdresser Porsche. Tought - how many of the people calling a Tudor a poor mans Rolex actually own a Rolex and know the difference first hand (or wrist 😉)? I disagree on the "they don't look alike" point on quite some models. Tudor does wild stuff here and there, but also cite early design language from Rolex.
Hairdressers porsche 😂😂😂 lol. Bever heard that one before. Fair point on the looks. I definitely angled that comment based on a like for like “today” perspective. When you go into the back catalogue and knowledge of what has come before, the similarities do start to stand out more clearly Thanks for taking the time to contribute 💪
I’m gonna say No. Why? Because my wallet and take home pay says so. If it’s a poor man’s Rolex, than it would be in the same ranks as a Bulova. Respectable looking watch that won’t mess with your take home pay. Tudor requires a little more than your average to 50% of your take home pay. Even at someone that takes home $100k a year, you’re gonna have to set back 2-3 months to save considering living in expenses, investments and a living but expensive spouse. Oh yeah, Tudor is long overdue with an All Blacks collaboration.
But a company like Oris is virtually producing the same type of timepieces at a better price. I'm not sure where they stand. $5K retail then, $2500 shortly thereafter on Ebay for a BB58. Ask 10 different people in the United States about Tudor and most would say, what is a Tudor.
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it 😃 The logic I've applied in the vid would dictate that it's an upgrade. It's basically the "same" as the entry model but with a different material (and a Metas movement). There is though a case to be made if some materials make the watch a separate category. It's the same question that applies to something like the Titanium Yachtmaster. It's way more expensive than the base YMs, so it's in many ways an "upgrade", but making it in titanium - does that make it fundamentally different from all the other YMs, that are more or less pure dress/showcase pieces? What would be your take? 😃
Nice analysis man. I would say back in the day, they were an affordable alternative to Rolex, especially when they were releasing the same brands as Rolex such as the submariner. They’ve since created a new brand under the Black bay name that has delineated itself from the submariner… particularly not using ceramic bezels to keep the more toolish look and feel. But then they make a Pepsi GMT, which then screams, poor man Rolex Pepsi… I think if they can stop doing that kind of stuff, then it can really delineate itself from Rolex. As beautiful as the new 5 link bracelet is on the burgundy Black bay, guess what… people still call it a jubilee style bracelet. And that’s what perpetuates the “poor man’s” Rolex moniker.
As you mentioned, Tudor used to manufacture its products with Rolex components (cases, crowns, hands, dials, gaskets). The only difference was the name on the dial and the movement inside. It was literally produced and priced as a "poor man's" Rolex, which was the as-referenced intention of Hans Wilsdorf. Currently, Tudor uses different cases and parts along with its own movements (i.e. non-ébauche movements). It is no longer the intention of the company to explicitly position Tudor as a "poor man's" Rolex. Instead, Tudor is positioned to compete with other entry-level luxury watch brands, which is evidenced by the pricing structure of its products.
Tudor will never be as up front as old Hans was about it but at the end of the day it's a poor man's Rolex despite the marketing. That doesn't make them bad watches or whatever, like you said they're entry level luxury which Rolex is not. Making them by default a poor man's rolex.
I think poor man’s Rolex kind of implies that the only reason you’d get one is because you want a Rolex but don’t have the money. And I think that’s not true for a couple of reasons. One, anyone who can afford to drop $4,500 on a Tudor can surely save up the cash to drop the requisite amount on the comparable Rolex during their time on the waitlist. And two, Tudor competes on its own merits. They simply dominate the $5k market with very little serious competition in terms of how much watch you’re getting for the money. the only whiff of a competitor on that front is some of the lower end Omegas but those are slowly pricing themselves out of the Tudor range. Sure, they have a few pieces that are basically replays of Rolex’s greatest hits, but that doesn’t code the whole brand as just a consolation prize for people who can’t afford Rolexes.
@@tylerbrown4483 I agree with you that the moniker ("poor man's Rolex") is an evident misnomer. It was a marketing and branding strategy to sell more luxury watches back in the early 20th century, and it has continued to the present. Of course Tudor watches aren't watches for low-income people, but luxury watch consumers (who themselves are not low-income people) have that perception of Tudor nonetheless.
I've never met a Tudor owner I didn't like, but I've met plenty of Rolex owners I didn't like. That's what sells me on Tudor.
lmao thats a really good way to put it
Yep. There is only one reason to make that comment. Nastiness. And those who make it never seem to ask themselves why they have bought The Poor Man's Nautilus or Royal Oak. They fixate on that one particular company as a mark of success, completely (and conveniently) ignoring the very large number of very much better watches that are a lot more expensive than theirs.
In short, there are a lot of not-nice people out there and they all seem to congregate around one brand. Which does absolutely nothing for that brand at all.
I have many Rolex watches and I still bought a Tudor because I liked it. I think a poor man’s Rolex is a fake Rolex not a Tudor
thank you. I expected watching the 18-minute long video will give me an answer, but it was your comment that did.
ah well
I have both, and they are great watches.
Or a good homage.
You hit the nail on the head. A Fake Rolex is the poor man's Rolex. Buying a watch should be an exercise in personal preference and choice, not an exercise in social psychology. I love my Tudor and the only downside to it so far is owning a watch that will always be subject to comparisons and social psychological baggage associated with Rolex and those who view it as a badge more than a wristwatch.
Same here
The great thing about wearing a Tudor, is that people know it's real.
Lol 😂😂
That's why I wear a vintage Sub 11660. Less speculation that it's fake when the watch is old.
Umm.. Tudor has a lot of replicas now a days..🙄
@@Lostcat777 Easy to get from an AD though so you know it's legit.
@@nicknack8459 Lol. Plenty of vintage/vintage-ised fake Rolexes out there.
This has fast become my favourite watch commentary channel!
Thanks!!!! Really glad you enjoy my vids 😀😀😀
I agree wholeheartedly. This is not just another RUclips channel for watch geeks. This channel sets aside exuberance and fanboy fluff in favor of analysis and insights based on facts, features, brand comprehension and market realities. Every time you watch a video from this RUclipsr you feel as though you come away with knowledge to help you make a better decision on your next purchase.
The thinking man's Pete McConvill.
Same
@@rdee8652JBL 2 knn😊d😊e😊wlo😊 we eweee
Take ANY Tudor watch, replace the logo with the Rolex logo, and the suckers will LINE UP to pay $15k for it
Not entirely unlikely 😃
Good point.
Not at all, Tudor and Rolex are entirely two different leagues in quality, it's very easy to tell.
@@divertitimissed the point entirely
Put a Rolex logo on the Pelagos 39 and peoples heads would explode
Thoughtful analysis, nicely done! To an extent, there is a bit of Thinking Man's Rolex in Tudor. I have a blue BB58. I bought it because I really like it, yes, but it embodies so much of what people used to buy Rolex for. Solid build, good finish, everything works well from the bezel to the movement to the lume. Nothing it doesn't need, nothing flashy: it's practical, versatile, durable. These are the things that people who've had their Rolex for decades value in their watch. Today Rolex has become a different beast and a more costly one.
Thanks! Appreciated.
Also tend to agree - tudor, for some at least, embodies something that Rolex no longer does - some level of authenticity.
Good perspective - thanks for sharing 😀
People used to buy Rolex because they were well built, reliable and able to take a beating.
These days If you want a reliable well built watch you get a G Shock. For diving you get a dive watch, nobody is doing serious dives with automatic watches nor are they climbing Mt Everest or hunting Elephants with them unless it's as a piece of jewelry and you got the sherpa or game warden keeping track of the time.
Just watched 2 of your videos. Very good quality - a lot of information and analysis, and no sensational stuff or use of graphics to attract attention. Subscribed!
Much appreciated! 😀😀😀
I used to think of Tudor as second fiddle to Rolex years ago. As of now I have multiple Omegas and `TUDORS` in my rotation. In the beginning I self I posed a limit on the amount of money I would spend on a piece. Example; I have a Tudor BB chrono reverse panda that I prefer over a Daytona or a Speedmaster. Can I afford a Rolex? Yes but I prefer the Tudor regardless of price. Bottom line, Tudor IS NOT my watch because I'm can't buy a Rolex. I simply am more attracted to what Tudor is offering now days.
But you have several Omegas which is actually a great and nice looking watch so why would you be buying Tudors? That doesn’t make any sense.
@@Greygoose3130 you are correct but isn't it also true that the last reason that we buy watches for is to tell time? I am just being sincere.😉
I own a couple of luxury watches but I still wear a Casio from time to time. Depends on the mood. Just because he owns omega's doesn't mean he can't buy anything cheaper that he like?
You would also get as good a watch for half the price of an omega. 50% of the cost is purely branding.
Is an omega seamaster worth 2.5x the price of an Oris aquis 300? No it's not. Quality is on par
I own an Omega SM300 and still wear my Longines and Rado watches, which are dressier watches. For me it’s about my mood and outfit that determines what watch I wear.
But can you purchase a Rolex?
I own two Rolex and two Tudor, in my 13 watch collection, I never have never thought I purchased a Tudor because I can’t afford a Rolex, I purchased every watch because It was what I wanted ..
I have the OP39 sitting next to my beloved and very underrated (even in this video not mentioned) Tudor Style 38 (black on stainless steel). Both of them sitting next to each other in my box. No poor feelings on the Tudor but also no rich feelings on the Rolex. I only see two strong brands and two strong watches there! Great video!! Great comparisons, thoughts and ideas!
Thanks - Glad you enjoyed it 😀😀
I own 2 Tudor, 1 Rolex and 1 Omega.
Your analysis is spot on. I do want to hear about your review on the BB54 from Tudor.
Thanks again.
Glad you enjoyed the video. Check out my reviews - I have a review of the 54 there as well 👍👍👍
The 54 video: ruclips.net/video/-wKT5S1723Y/видео.html
Simplest answer: Poor people don't buy $2k+ watches. They buy Armitron. 💯
That’s right, it’s not a poor man’s Rolex it’s a suckers Rolex. Just save you’re money and buy the real thing, or at least buy a good looking and special watch like an seamaster. Don’t be impatient and settle for a black bay.
@@Greygoose3130 Unless you hate too much flashiness and a Black Bay is exactly the thing you want.
I hear ya Stallion💪
Nah mate I got two tudors but will add a omega and Rolex to my collection and wear them all with pride
20 usd for a digital chrono? What’s not to like 😂😂😂
I own 7 Tudor and 7 Rolex watches. Is a Tudor a poor man's Rolex? No, it's a watch I can buy and more importantly, they are producing innovative watches that I can buy when I want to buy them, which is a bit of a curse as I have not been able to buy a Rolex in 3 years because no one will sell me one. So I buy Tudor from the AD that used to sell me Rolex, win win for them, they are a great bunch.
Why would someone need 7 beater watches? That seems foolish. Should have just bought another Rolex or two
@@Greygoose3130 that’s the point here in the U.K. it’s not possible unless I spend £10k on shit I don’t want. I would rather spend that money on “beater” watches or more correctly tool watches as the gentleman that put together this excellent analysis noted. A friend has finally go her Air King, to be put on the list she had to buy a £5000 Omega, lovely watch but 5k nonetheless. Gets a call six months later for a date just on a Wimbledon dial, very nice but not the watch she wanted, she takes it on the basis that she wants an air king. Gets the call but is out of the country so I collect the watch for her, the AD want’s her to purchase a “little” piece. I get to the store, it’s the salesman’s day off so I deal with his colleague who tells me a “little” piece should be £2k, did not have to consult friend and that was a hard no, you want another £2k for an Air King! She wanted earrings at £850. Deal was done. Seriously this shit is what it is but thank god Rolex is increasing supply and the grey market is back to semi reality.
Remember the old days? Six years back when brands like Cartier and Omega had to buy back stock that had flooded the market, and you could still get a discount on a datejust (I got 11% off one in 2017)?
Those were the days when consumers had the watchmakers and ADs by the short and curlies….
Thanks for contributing 😀💪
@@Mike.thiswatchthatwatch the only time I got a discount was when I did not ask for it in Saudi Arabia, was not a lot but nice to have, this was on a hulk. Most of the stuff I have I never had to wait for, saw it in the window and just wandered in.
very well made comparison!
Really excellent analysis! I honestly bought my Tudor GMT because I yearned for a true GMT that harkened back to days gone buy when the GMT Master was used as a tool and not jewelry. I couldn’t afford an older model and was worried it would be destroyed if used day to day. I was on the wait list for a new model but got impatient. I decided to get the Tudor because it was the absolute closest I could get to my fondness for the Fat Lady GMT Master of my birth year p, while still being usable every day. I am so glad I did. My fondness for Tudor is apparent in my collection. I now have three and honestly have ZERO yearning for a Rolex at all anymore. Except for one…..just one.
Also the only thing that I thought was missing from the video was the SkyDweller……and the Tudor counterpart? Really amazing video. Be well
Thanks for the feedback and for sharing. Appreciated 😃
100% agree. I have always loved the classic Rolex GMT either Coke or Pepsi. The newer Rolex GMT with the ceramic bezels and extra polishing in its finish just does not do it for me. I would have loved an old classic Rolex GMT but they are very expensive I found the Tudor Black Bay GMT and I was sold it was exactly what I was looking for....love the watch.
I'm in the same club. I like the subdued colors on the Tudor's bezel, and I'm going to say it, the Rolex is overpriced. If it were like $7,000 and had less of a bejeweled appearance, absolutely. But that ain't the case.
Tudor GMT is no where near as refined as Rolex, it's a chunky slab on the wrist
It's one of the most interesting watch-related videos I've ever seen on RUclips
Yay! Thanks - means a ton to me 😀
Rolex is now the poor man's Patek. Tudor is now the unpretentious man's Rolex. Its more tool oriented, high quality and a great value. This is exactly what made Rolex's reputation in the past (plus some clever marketing). Rolex is now desperately trying to go upmarket. As if they have some kind of inferiority complex vs. the haute horlogerie brands like Patek, AP, and Vacheron. They're now doing open case backs with more movement finishing and the 1908 is nothing more than a Calatrava homage. I think they've betrayed their tool watch origins and the DNA that made them so great. Rolex is nothing but a lifestyle brand now. I have several Tudors and many more Rolexes (all bought before the hype). Do I wear my Sea-Dweller 4K when I dive? No, I wear my Pelagos. Do I wear my Explorer II 42mm or my GMT Master II when I travel? No, I wear the BBPro or BBGMT. The Tudors get much more wrist time in almost all situations. Why? Because they give off a different vibe. More tool-like and not flashy jewelry. No hype, no status-symbol, no bling bling.
Fair perspective. Tudor definitely is the more humble everyman watch for sure 😀😀😀
well said and true. when i go shopping wine in the next town i take the abarth 590, not the gallardo
Poor people struggle to put food on the table let alone being able to afford a Tudor.
Proper perspective.
Very true point 👍
Median global net worth is ~$8300.
@@halfsourlizard9319 that is an absolutely useless figure mate. $8300 (USD I assume) in Zimbabwe is a lot more than in the US.
@@halfsourlizard9319 80% of American citizens do not have a spare $1,000. A quarter of UK citizens live in poverty. Millions of kids in The (used-to-be) First World go to bed hungry.
Fantastic video. You just reminded me of why I (very recently) subscribed to your channel! Very informative and non-judgmental commentary.
This watch debate has been around as long as I can remember. I have a Rolex DeepSea, but given how much it's appreciated in value I rarely wear it. Recently I've been looking at alternatives that I can drive daily and ended up landing on Seiko (bought an SSK001 and SSC911), but I can honestly say after watching this video that a Tudor GMT might be in my not-so-distant future. 😃
Keep up the great content. Cheers!
Thank you 😊😊
Another wonderful and insightful analysis. Lots of food for thought from many different intresting angles that I would never have considered. The video editing is also superb!!! I'm delighted that I found this channel!!! In my mind you have proven that Tudor has it's own design language, distinct from Rolex and it should be seen as such.
Thank you - Glad you found my video worth you time 😀😀
I own a Submariner and a Datejust, and 3 years ago I bought my first Tudor, a Pelagos. Of the three watches, I wear the Pelagos daily. It’s more accurate than either Rolex and it looks great. Naturally people comment more about the Rolexes, because they’re Rolexes. But I simply prefer the Tudor, it has a beautiful blue dial and bezel, compared to the black dial/bezel of the s/s Sub, and champagne dial of the Datejust, and it’s a two-tone s/s-18k yg, which I hardly wear anymore. I’d probably wear it more if it was white gold.
At the end of the day, it's about what you like. My favorite watch (currently - that changes all the time) is NOT my most expensive or "high status" watch. It's a lowly Seiko....
Thanks for sharing 😀😀😀
I got a bb54 today. I love it. Thanks for this marketing case of study, this analysis is at MBA level.
The Pelagos is just an incredible dive watch. It’s a tool. Understated and cool.
True 😃
Agree have bought one in last November it’s the Pelagos LHD love it such a cool watch don’t like the newer version it looks more cheap made lume it’s poor than the last versions wish I’ve not made the same mistake every one does … and wait to buy that specific model instead buying other brands at the end when you start making maths you spent more money on models that you just buy it because you saw a RUclipsr making a review bla bla bla …
All that said we need to follow the “cheep’s 😂 today went to a Tudor AD try some Tudor chronos the panda , reverse and the tow tone and when you saw it on a review they look great all that said my opinion aiaiaiaiai 8200€ for the Two tone really 🤔…
Have Hanhart Pioneer Mark II used to like it and know it’s on the box , bought a Longines Hydroconquest chronograph in 2016 aiaiaiaia like it accurate but rather at time saw those Tudor before but weren’t available not even an AD now all AD’s full of them but prices are crazy for nothing special watch … that’s my opinion and now I’m in a cross road situation should I wait for next April Geneve Watch and Wonders …???? I bet they will raise prices plus new models will show up this is an expensive disease!
I’ll gone wait some will start showing up pre-owned for sure money talks ! Always!
If they offered a Pelagos GMT… that is my dream watch.
@@MrOliverboxit’s your time
Very thoughtful and well analyzed.. I really like your conclusion on this. Ultimately buy what you want if you like the Tudor and the value proposition suits you then go for it. If you really want a Rolex you gotta get one. To me the poor man’s Rolex makes no sense because Tudor has its own identity, it’s not a Rolex « replacement » and never will be.
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it. (and tend to agree with your conclusion as well 😀
Sigh. It’s such a stupid statement. Tudor use vintage Rolex as their blueprint (usually models that are iconic and unobtainable by any standard) and they have moved into Rolex’s former price segment. It is therefore more accurate to say that modern Tudor is the OLD Rolex, and that vintage Tudor was the working class Rolex, as Hans Wildorf intended
Interesting way of putting it. I like 😀
My Tudor Black Bay 41 Monochrome was my first luxury watch purchase, and I was able to get it literally 1 day after it came out at my local Tudor boutique. I saw the reveal online on April 9, could not stop drooling, went into the boutique on April 10, tried it on, and was able to buy it that evening. It was such a great experience and made me feel like a valued customer. This would never happen with Rolex. Never ever.
If you can afford endless watch collections ,,,, have Rolex and Tudor.
However, when you've attained a great achievement in life, Rolex. Success screams Rolex. Rappers, new young sports stars, your mom, and the Gen-Z'er with all their AI gadgets all know what a Rolex is. I bet not even half have heard of Tudor.
It is sort of like: If you want a great car, buy a Toyota. If you want a better great car, buy a Lexus.
If I can only afford one luxury watch, its a Rolex, not a Tudor.
Ps... I just bought a gorgeous GS Sky Flake Spring Drive a few months ago, and I have a feeling my AD will be calling me soon to pick up a Roli GMT Master 2, 40mm, two tone yellow rolesor, jubilee..... STOKED!!!
After that I think I'm done..... (maybe done.... because I saw a cool Christopher Ward and a beautiful red-dial Formax)....
Cool story: my "get hands dirty elegant tank" is a Tissot diver I bought 28 years ago. I was blading down an insane hill in the mid-90s and was going so fast the chassis could not stabilize my wheels. Needless to say I bailed pretty hard and earned some road rash (lucky I did not die during one of many young and stupid episodes). However, I should have busted my wrist, but my Tissot Diver literally saved my wrist from being busted; hence, my Elegant Tank. They don't make 'em like they used to!
I agree
@SIZZO76
PS.... just picked up my roli 10 hours ago that I referred to in my previous post. LOVING IT !
Tudor is the wise man's (and woman's ) Rolex. I am speaking from 58 years of experience and enthusiasm in watches - horology.
As you speak, I listen 😀👍
Watching your videos is an intellectual experience in horology and I love it.
Coming back to this video after the latest video on Tudor’s future. A couple points from a different perspective:
1. Tudor watches feel more like Old Rolexes than innovative or new. For instance, BB aluminium bezels look similar to old Subs especially the font. BB41 jubilee is old Datejust Jubilee. BB GMT has quite the traits of 70s 80s Pepsi. Ranger borrows heavily from old Explorer (but is even more dull)
2. Tudor is limited in the quality it can offer because the better stuff is for Rolex’s catalogue. Don’t think they will even be even allowed to release a watch that’s more accurate or has better materials or the elite finishing and applied indices of Rolex.
Now this is by no means a price point bottle neck. This is just that they are below Rolex in their conglomerate and that positioning makes it the Cheaper (price and quality) offering from Rolex group for me even though not Entirely a Cheaper version of Rolex’s current catalogue. Point to note, their Pepsi type GMT, jubilee type bracelets and vintage Sub vibes from BB do step in Rolex territory and might be seen as Cheaper Rolex alternatives adding to the weight on its ankles and reason for the tag.
It seems to me that tudor listen to the customer and offer much better variations in colour and sizing. As an owner of both I think rolex could learn from tudor. Imagine if rolex released a submariner variation in bb58 proportions, people would loose their minds.
Tend to agree - Rolex doesn’t at least seem to give an impression of listening to the customer in the same way that Tudor does. There’s less distance, it seems between Tudor and the end customer
Cheers 😀
Rolex knows that treating us mean will keep us keen. I don't particularly like the look of modern Submariners, but somehow in my mind, I feel like I need to buy one. Genius marketing.
Both Tudor and Rolex are aspirational and milestone brands, if you can afford a Tudor then you can probably afford a Rolex. Tudor is there as a gateway drug while you wait for your Rolex.
If you get Tudor because you want a Tudor then its fine, but if your buying a Tudor because you wanted a Rolex then its just a mistake.
Mike. Great summary. I believe Tudor is working hard, and enjoying the process, of finding its identity and earning our money.
Thanks ! 😃
I honestly don't like Tudor, not because I think that they're a bad watch (because they're very good watches) but because they don't exist in a vacuum. With watches that are as good or better from brands like Mido, Tissot, Longines, Christopher Ward and Oris costing the same or less, Tudor clearly becomes a brand that is inflated by its association with Rolex.
I see this a lot when people try to compare Tudor with Omega against whom it falls completely flat. I look at a Tudor and I see a Tissot Seastar 1000, Mido Ocean Star or Longines HydroConquest that costs far more than it should.
It's able to get away with the higher pricing because some people think of it as "A Rolex without the Rolex name on it" which is as stupid as saying that a Longines is "An Omega without the Omega name on it". I look at Tudor as "A Rolex-endorsed homage brand" and while I don't have anything against homage watches per se, I don't think that they deserve to command high prices.
I agree with every word you just said my friend.
Pin this!
This is a pretty bad take. If you can’t look and see the objective differences between a Longines or Tissot and a Tudor, then you can’t look and see the objective difference between a Tudor and an Omega, because they are as stark.
Tudor simultaneously leans into its heritage as a more accessible way to buy the Rolex aesthetic, and also as a way to take Rolex-inspired risks in a way that Rolex never could. The prices aren’t there because people think it’s basically a Rolex, the prices aren’t there because Tudor dominates the $3,500-$5,500 market.
No one else is making a better watch than Tudor in that range. Neither in some of the “Rolex replays” like the new BB58 GMT nor in some of their new innovations with the Pelagos line.
Very well thought review of this topic. Personally, I don't see Tudor as a "poor man's" Rolex. If someone wants a Rolex, no amount of Tudor can satisfy that feel. Tudor by itself, regardless of being a subsidiary of Rolex, makes very desirable watches. Both Rolex and Tudor are going to coexist within any watch enthusiast's growing collection.
Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it 😀
Having the privilege of owning watches from both houses, you summation, I feel is pretty accurate! As you quote “dare to be different”. They seem to have managed to do this pretty well. However, Rolex’s dabbing in the Ti materials I believe will open up more Ti options in the future line up! The Explorer 2 in Ti will be my grail. 😂 great content, keep it up! Tot die volgende keer.
Explorer ii in titanium…. May need to schedule a meeting with the bank *drools 😂😂😂
I just purchased the Black Bay 41 with the burgundy bezel and the METAS certified movement. I love it. It’s a fantastic watch for the money. Great channel.
Thanks a lot. Appreciated. 😊
and totally agree on the burgundy model 👍
Tudor was literally made for regular working people. I'm a regular working person. Picking up a used BB or GMT is totally attainable for me. And with Rolex being owned by every idiot in Silicon Valley, the AD games, etc....
Can't argue against you on the whole bay area, silicon valley bit.... 😃😃
Great analysis. I know that almost everyone who I’ve met at my Tudor AD’s events also owns 1 or more Rolexes. But they own more Tudors because they are the obtainable Rolex. Much shorter waits.
2024 will be interesting to see if one of your assertions - Tudor can do their own thing as long as they make money - is true. My salesperson told me there will be a lot of things customers have been requested released next April.
Same kind of people say a Boxster is a poor man's 911 absolute bollocks!
Yep, in my humble opinion the Cayman is the best all around sports car that Porsche makes but I would still love to have a 911.
I have a Cayman, and I agree. I could have bought a 991, but I chose to buy a Cayman because I liked the way it drove better, and it didn't feel like it was the size of a 1970's Cadillac LOL.
A gay man's Porsche
While I have already commented, another interesting question might be regarding Rolex’s role among luxury brand watches, since it has a much lower entry price level than AP, for example. It is also mass produced in numbers far greater than the AP or Pateks of the world. Rolex is closer to Omega in this regard. With changing demographics, it makes little sense to call Tudor an Everyman watch, while not a watch that could compete in the most exclusive end of the industry’s offerings. It would be interesting to know what the price levels between Rolex and Tudor were when Tudor was first introduced. Also, it will be interesting to see what happens fo the Rolex brand when its new factory comes on board and it can turn out another million watches a year.
Tudor is young man's Rolex. A young man who didn't inherit an old Rolex, so he either wants something new and interesting, or something new that looks old.
Quite possibly accurate. Tudor definitely speaks to a younger generation 😀
@@Mike.thiswatchthatwatch i Have Rolex and Tudor in my collection. Even Jack Mason. I buy what i like PERIOD!!!!!!!!!I will not pay over retail for the Rolex that why i buy the full gold rolex as i can get under retail.
In thee grey market place.
Tudor have their own DNA nowadays . And if you want to compare Tudor is not poor men Rolex … Tudor is available Rolex 😉
Casual listening! Nice work. Good editing and loved the visuals
Glad you enjoyed it! 😃
Tudor has enabled Rolex to get into the higher almost unobtainable "list" league. Tudor becoming the clear second choice and soon-to-be direct competitor to Omega. It's ingenious market placement as it will inflate Rolex to new positions, protecting the brand, whilst Tudor sweep up after those that cannot afford or (more relevantly) cannot obtain a Rolex!
However, Tudors manufacturing is very strong and could arguably outshine both Rolex and Omega if they continue with their combined level of development, quality and affordability... Especially considering their aim to gradually make the BB line METAS over the next few years.
HHmm....Tudor's reliability problems have stopped me from buying them in the last couple of years. And the closeness of a GS boutique.
The last time I went into a Rolex place, it was, as usual. full of gold and diamond-encrusted watches that nobody wanted. And there was ONE steel, Datejust with plain bezel and oyster bracelet. I tried it and was utterly unmoved. A truly boring watch for a totally unreasonable amount of money. As I discussed it with SWMBO, an actual queue formed behind me to try it on. We left hurriedly. If we had had all the money in the world on that day, we would not have bought it. I haven't been in a Rolex place since.
The upgrade in Rolex = fancier metals/jewels etc. The upgrade of Tudor = Rolex.
Long story short, YES. Price point, target market and availability as well as it was literally produced and priced as a "poor man's" Rolex, which was the as-referenced intention of Hans Wilsdorf in his direct quote.
Exactly, this should have been a 30 second video. It is a "poor's man" Rolex by design as literally publicly announced by Wilsdorf himself.
@@CorkKNIFE This aint a tiktok video. Its a "DISCUSSION".
@@PyroClit Filler =! discussion.
Not everyone has to be like Oprah creating a fantasy counterpoint that is not sustainable.
@@CorkKNIFE Filler? He has a very good points though. You shouldnt be here if you dont want discussions.
@@PyroClit I'm all for discussion, this one simply strained my patience.
The way you explained and displayed the delineation was brilliant. Subscribed!
Thanks! Really appreciated 😀
Who says Tudor is a poor mans Rolex? It´s only in comments on the internet in forums, facebook, youtube, etc...on watch related subjects.....just ignore it, we all know that more than 50% who give comments on these platforms are idiots or people who have the need to always spread negative shit....in real life nobody will tell you Tudor is a poor mans Rolex.....99,9 % of all people don´t care about watches.....and the 0,1% watch nerds out there they know their shit and will appreciate if they see a Tudor in the wild,
This is true. It’s a watch community, online forum thing for sure 😀
I always figured the poor man’s Rolex was Invicta.
Wow, this analysis is a masterpiece!
Thanks. Wow... Glad you liked it 😃😃
Tudor has never been a poor man's Rolex. I'm a poor man and I could never afford a Tudor. Christ, that's even more expensive than my car.
I love watches but it's a rich man's game really.
How can a watch that costs $3000-$5000 be a poor man's anything? That is a lot of money for a watch regardless.
It’s all relative
It’s incredible how many people honestly believe that a Tudor is a cheap homage to rolex and the same people believe Rolex is the pinnacle of watch making 🤣 90% or rolex wearers know nothing about watches and it’s purely bragging rights amongst equally clueless people. I’m lucky enough to have two Rolex; two omega, a Tudor and a Habring2. The Habring destroys them all but these Tudor haters won’t know what a Habring2 is.
Rolex is a status symbol. If owning a Rolex becomes someone's life goal, no chance that he or she will buy a Tudor because it is cheaper. That said, I own a BB36 and I bought it on purpose as a poor man's Rolex. I wanted a robust and well finished shiny timepiece that made me think of an first explorer.
Great analysis on the Omega product range. the overlap could have been a video on itself.
I like your take on the "born to dare". Actually it's "Dare to be different in the marketing".
Thanks - really appreciate the feedback.
Have recently done a whole “the trouble with omega video” you could check out.
As for the BB36 - Had one until my wife took it over. She loves it and I’m unfortunately likely never getting it back. 😂
Thanks for contributing 😀😀
Wonderful! Compare and contrast instead of complain. Graphic "timeline" approach is fantastic.
Thanks a ton - Really appreciate the feedback 😀
Another great video. I think the simply answer is the relaunched Tudor allows Rolex to raise its prices while protecting its rear from the likes of Omega etc. Another interesting thought experiment is to compare how the Swatch group uses Longines vis-à-vis Omega, versus how Rolex uses Tudor. Lots of differences, but I wonder if there might be more similarity than first meets the eye.
Good point. Swatch and their group of firms are definitely not identical in nature to the Tudor & Rolex relationship, but Swatch definitely does tier their brands and the moonswatch is proof that they would love the brands to interact and be stepping stones between each other as peoples finances develop
😀
The the model comparison chart is a big help as I searched for my watch. Add the complete chart for information.
If you want a quality Swiss watch then you look at Tudor. If you want a technically better Swiss watch than a Rolex you look at Omega. If you want a user friendly Swiss watch then look at Rolex.
That's my opinion and no way is a Tudor a poor man's Rolex and that's because they are still expensive. You can get a very nice second hand car for a price of a Tudor.
Spot on
Can’t argue with that. 5k isn’t nothing 😀
Love your discussions.
Always fascinating. Many thanks 🙏 👍
and as always.... Thanks to you 😃😃
A poor man cannot afford a Tudor or any other luxury watch. We tend to see a watch that costs around 3000 to 4000 USD or Euros as an entry level luxury watch. We live in a bubble that's for sure.
It's just figure of speech and shouldn't be taken literally.
Once again, another home run. Thank you for presenting the comparison in such a universally understandable way. As someone not that bothered about Rolex (even though I would have a root beer any day), I wasn't aware of their horizontal and vertical offerings demarcation. It's been great to learn something new about a brand.
In a strange way, Tudor now stands out to me as a brand I'd like to explore in more detail.
Conversely, Omega somehow comes across scattered, desperate, and unpredictably incoherent in its design language.
Finally, all this tells us is that one man's choice is another's avoidance, and THAT is what makes horology such a rewarding hobby, passion, or fashion statement. It's all about choice, and there is plenty for every taste or whim.
Glad you found it worth your time 😊
Great video. As a Tudor owner and huge fan I really enjoyed your perspective. I agree with most everything you said. I would like to add something that I find frustrating. They say “poor” man’s Rolex. I don’t know too many poor men buying $5000+ watches. I choose to buy them because I like them, they are available ( with waiting lists where I live) and I enjoy them. Not because they are cheep. I know $5000 isn’t expensive in the watch world but poor people aren’t buying them. Sorry long winded. Great video
Thanks a ton 😀
And yes - Tudor is way to expensive to be anything for a poor man….. 😀
I think you nailed it here, down to the differences in corporate culture. Tudor is much more daring.
I expect to buy a Pelagos in titanium as the ultimate diving tool watch. It's almost funny how Tudor managed to remove anything dressy from the design. I can imagine the designers and engineers cheering each removal.
I hear from others that it is also is a fabulous watch to take ... diving, a sport I enjoy.
Rolex is an expensive Tudor!
That's definitely another way of putting it 😃😃
Tudor should have built on the North Flag, because it was a fantastic tool watch that had nothing in common with Rolex. It dared to be different. Your content is highly informative and balanced.
Rolex is the poor man’s Patek.
Patek is the poor man’s Phillipe dufour
That escalated quickly 😂
True 🤣🤣🤣
Is Tudor a poor man's Rolex? A watch is a tool and its primary job is to tell time. As much as possible, we want that time to be communicated to us as accurate as possible. But, when you can get a $20 Casio quartz or a Casio Gshock Multiband 6 watch synchronize to atomic clocks around the world, it will out perform a Rolex, Tudor or Omega....etc, so why is this topic of rich vs poor so contentious? At the end of the day, a $20,000 watch can be beaten by a watch you can get at Walmart. Of course I do understand, luxurious craftsmanship, heritage and all that glitz and glamour...but bottom line, its job is to tell time. What do a rich man and a poor man's watch have it common....their watches tell time. You can praise a luxury mechanical watch for hours and hours....you can rhapsodize and write a poem about the deep emotional connection you have of it, but at the end, its job to tell time can be beaten by a quartz. As a collector of both mechanical and quartz watches, I don't get caught up about the perception of rich vs poor time pieces. Just wear what you like and enjoy it.
Couldn't agree more - Wear what you enjoy 😀😀
I got my BB pro because it's a great watch and fantastic value for the money , it's my daily watch I prefer Tudor more than Rolex as Tudor I feel is much more in line with my personality and I like the more rugged feel of Tudor tool watches.
Tudor does tool watch really really well for sure .😃
Labelling a Tudor watch as a "poor man's Rolex" is no more than a crude pejorative of Hans Waldorf's "idea of making a watch that our agents could sell at a more modest price than our Rolex watches." My late father owned a Rolex Explorer. While I admire the quality and attention to craftsmanship of today's Rolex line of watches, the Rolex Explorers of his day were much more accessible. Thank you for another thoughtful analysis. Subscribed. Cheers.
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts 😀
0:56 People are also idiots though. Quibbling over who's poor based on the brand they like. It's why you should take everyones comments with a grain of salt.
The irony of what gets discussed in the comments is not lost on me 😀
The only problem with tudor is that it looks exactly like a rolex. That starts the conversation of why didn't you just buy Rolex? If Tudor was very different from Rolex, it would have its own niwhere people can say it is a sister company of Rolex.
😂 exactly!!! Right???? The problem with Tudor is it's pretending to be a Rolex! If it were like longines with its own designs there wouldn't be that constant nagging issue , why didn't you get a Rolex!😂
And don't get me started with sycophants telling me, why does it look like a Rolex???😂 OMG!
@Mega-zi7ys haha exactly, I much prefer their royal models coz they don't look like a rolex
@@marshallmarthes great minds think alike 😂👌
Thank you for creating watch related content, which I find to be unusually thoughtful and interesting. With this in mind I was a little surprised to see the “let’s pooh-pooh Hublot” in the beginning of this video. Perhaps you simply don’t like the brand. That’s OK. But do they really deserve all the hate they receive? Why are they so successful if the suck so badly? (Because Hublot is very successful, it seems to me.) I would be intrigued to see a video from you on Hublot where you turn your analytical skills in this direction. In any event, keep up the good work!
Found the butt-hurt Hublot owner.
Ha. I actually put the comment in is a bit of a joke (That didn’t land well) because it’s kind of the opinion you’re supposed to have as a watch nerd of Hublot
I did a review of the fusion where I touch quite a bit on the views on Hublot and whether the criticism is fair
ruclips.net/video/fqhF8SLo6pc/видео.html
Have considered doing a full Hublot analysis - They’re doing some interesting stuff
Cheers 😀
@@Mike.thiswatchthatwatch Thanks for the reply. I have to admit to some embarrassment that I was not aware of this video, which puts a finger on a reason for the animosity held towards Hublot: low perceived value of Hublot (Fusion), which also involves a sense of unoriginality of the case design. My apologies. Are these concerns enough to rationalize the internet shit storm? Maybe they are.
Whatever the case Hublot has made interesting choices with regard to marketing and product placement (as far as I can tell) so I hope you find the time for a full Hublot analysis at some point.
No need to apologise. Binging 50 of my videos in one go is an ask, I won’t make of any viewer 😂😂😂
Just stick around for other videos, is all I hope for 😀😀
I appreciate your remarkable knowledge and thoughtful, original content. I also appreciate that you look at each watch and evaluate each on its merits. I cannot afford a Rolex. However, I followed your advice and bought a Tudor Palagos 42mm and am absolutely thrilled with the watch. My brother is a Rolex fan and when we get together, I do not feel like i am wearing a copy of his watch nor a lower cost substitute. I drive a Mazda because I can afford a Mazda. I would probably like to drive a BMW but that desire does not diminish my appreciation for the Mazda which I believe is an excellent car for my needs and budget. Thank you for your superb analysis and mastery of your subject.
I looked at the subject of most of your videos (which I am watching slowly but surely!) and I did not find a video regarding advice on creating a modest watch collection. Now that I have a tool watch, I don’t watch another, and another tool watch. Where do I go from here? I would like something very different, perhaps a Tag Heuer Monaco. I have purchased a few watches because as a retiree, I have always loved watches and enjoy wearing them and looking at them each day and I am not getting younger. A watch represents the zenith of art and engineering that builds on a global history of development and purpose. I don’t want to sell them, I want to enjoy them until I stop functioning! Thank you so very much.
Its the rich mans Christoher ward.
CW does deliver a lot of value for sure… 😀
Yet another excellent analytical presentation! I'm so glad you do my thinking for me. (Wouldn't want to play chess against you!) Now, how about a similar analysis on Grand Seiko? A brand I love, but have numerous issues with!
Lol... Thanks 😀😂😂
Grand Seiko. There is a video in the works, but I'm still wrapping my head around them. Those kinds of deep dive vids take some time for me to get right 😀😀
Yes. It’s an overpriced knock off of an overpriced original that people settle for because the Original won’t sell to them because they are not spending enough at their AD, so in a genius move, they have convinced people to buy an ugly and thick, but still shockingly expensive version of a watch they can’t get. You can hate this take but You’re mad because it’s true.
lol .😃🤣
Once again I find myself caught by the Mike vortex. Awesome analysis, as usual. The BB54 is my "reachable grail" by some miles. What a work of art. I love Tudor - particularly because it remains democratic and afordable (hope that won't change).
Money aside, put the BB54 next to any Rolex and I'd pick the former. Now, put money on the conversation and I'd go for the latter - but just so I could buy myself the 54 and a Seamaster, haha.
The “mike vortex” 😂 lol
As for the bb - It’s an amazing watch 😀
Tudor is a between 3-5k mostly. At that price range it has little competition in build quality. I believe they know their place in the market and deliver arguably the best watch for your money at it's price.
Tend to agree. Although.... Longines and to some extent Oris are really doing good things in the same price bracket (more or less) as well 😃
Honestly, I learned more from this video about the Rolex/Tudor relationship than I have during the last 35 years of being both a Rolex and a Tudor watch collector/enthusiast ☺
Thanks a lot!
This is an excellent informative video, keep up the great work!
Excellent analysis…quite insightful…answered some questions I had, and confirmed some of my own thoughts. I don’t consider Tudor to be the poor man’s Rolex at all, and you’ve pretty much perfectly explained why. However, some people will continue to refer to it as such either out if envy or because they’re bragging.
True that - envy/bragging are never going away 😀
Great insight! ... I bought my Pelagos 39 because I like it. Period
Right on! 💪💪💪
I wish Tudor would change the hour hand it looks like a child designed it with scissors and paper. That’s probably the biggest thing that stops me buying a Tudor or Rolex of that kind. Oh and the cost too 😂
No ways, that is what separates Tudor from every other watch, besides, it looks great. I have had Rolexes and Tudors, I like both hour hands, but Tudor's much more.
What a wonderful video, fantastic. I own both Rolex and Tudor watches, and they are both, a pleasure to own and wear.
Thanks. Good choice on having both 😀😀
I have a bb 58 and a sub. The 58 gets 90% of the wrist time. I like the 58 more. It's just as good or better than my rolex sub or omega seamaster
I like how you lined these up and broke it down. Nice work
Thanks 😃
Even people who can afford Rolex can’t buy Rolex. Their a factory watch anyway. Don’t get me wrong, I’d buy one if I could find an AD that would sell me one.. I bought a $6,990 AUD Tudor Pelagos 42 recently and LOVE IT!
Maybe Rolex doesn't actually exist anymore. Maybe they're just figments of everybodies imagination....🤣🤣🤣
Excellent video. Makes me appreciate Tudor all the more. Keep up the good work.
Thank you - and as you should. Tudor make great watches 😊
This is the same ridiculous statement as claiming Maserati is a poor man's Ferrari.
Very well stated. I really enjoy these educational videos you produce. I like Tudors , especially the older ones like the Prince oyster... Thank you for your informative analysis of both Tudor & Rolex.
It’s probably a wise man‘s Rolex.
Perhaps 😂😀
A very thoughtful and detailed analysis. I like your intelligent approach to this age old debate. Unfortunately there are too many unintelligent people that will always judge a book by it's cover.
I am an owner and big fan of both brands. Rolex marketing has always been in my subconscious since birth. However I had never considered or even heard of Tudor until they relaunched the original BB 41 in 2012. For me, I am attracted to Tudor for two reasons which may be considered the reason it is a poor man's alternative. Affordability and availability. But they're not the exclusive reasons for me to buy Tudor. I liked the Rolex designs of the 1980s and the pre ceramic era when I was growing up and reading Nat Geo magazines with Rolex ads that inspired me to want to own them. Tudor's introduction of vintage inspired designs allows me to scratch that itch without breaking the bank.
I think, although I hate the term a 'poor man's Rolex' there's truth in that statement no matter how I look at it. But it all depends on the individual's experience and perspective of these brands. You could call an Omega Seamaster or Speedmaster a poor man's Rolex. As I'm sure many watch collectors have purchased an Omega as an alternative or in regret of not being able to buy a Sub or Daytona at retail.....So is Omega a poor man's Rolex more so than Tudor?? Perhaps that may be an interesting psychological debate and a good title for your next video, albeit a controversial one.
That’s a strong point - Rolex is so dominant, so desirable that for many brands Tudor, Omega especially you could make the case that they are fall back or “poor mans” Rolexes.
The next couple of vids are going to avoid Omega, Tudor and Rolex if possible to coveri something a little out of the mainstream for a change 😉😀
I agree with what most people have already stated in the comments. Tudor is "not" a poor man's Rolex. Sure, when Tudor was created in 1946, that statement may have had some meaning to it. Afterall, the founder of Rolex did intend for Tudor to be the affordable alternative. But those days are long over! Now days, a Tudor watch costs way more money than the average person would ever think about spending on a watch (if they even wear a watch). Personally, I think of Tudor as what Rolex once was! Their sport's models can be viewed as toolish, while having very nice aesthetics in a quality Swiss build. Of course, they obviously share some of Rolex's DNA too. But they don't carry the baggage of a Rolex. And that works nice for Tudor!
Let's take a direct quote from the founder of both companies, completely discard it, and replace it with our own idea. This must be such a great way to live. Just throw out whatever someone says, no matter who they are, and replace it with your own ideas. You can just tailor reality to however you like it. The freedom this must bring! You can live in your own delusional world forever.
Microsoft founder Bill Gates said in the early 80s that the mission for MS was to have a PC on every desk and in every home in the world. That's not their mission anymore.
Steve Jobs insisted that a Pen for the iPad would be over his dead body. He was fundamentally against it.
So I agree. Founders go. Things change. Missions change.
Thanks for contributing 😃😃
Another great video! So glad I found your channel. I actually prefer Tudor because of the fact that many don't know of it's association with Rolex. The Rolex brand just doesn't fit with my personality and desire to not draw attention to myself.
Thanks for watching! 😃😃😃😃
They are a poor man’s Rolex because most people that are dropping $4-6K on a Tudor at an AD know it’s owned Rolex and it’s a factor in why they choose it, even above it’s price competitors like Omega, which I find baffling, but precisely because of its Rolex association. In all, just on a $4-6K watch and it’s competitors in its price range (IWC, Omega, etc.), I think they are overpriced for the quality they offer. They are good watches , but should be competing more with Sinn, Oris, Longines. I think there’s a lot of personal introspection that watch lovers need to have as to why they buy the brands they buy. If you care even slightly that a friend will recognize the brand on your wrist, just save up for a Rolex. Because 99% of people know Rolex as apposed to the 10% that know a Tudor, Omega, etc.
Absolutely 👍🏻
Tudor pricing is a tier below Omega and IWC. Their quality is good for the $2-6K range they occupy. Omega and IWC start at $5-6K.
Tudor watches a quite a bit cheaper than Omega and IWC they are not trying to compete with either. Tudor have found a niche price bracket that sits just above Longines and beneath Omega and they are cleaning up.
@michaelthomas527 - Agree. They are priced closer to Longines than Omega and have been knockikg it out of the park compared to Longines (considering how much they get talked about relative to Longines size)
No doubt there’s also an emotional component to watch buying as well that catches “brand perception”
And yeah - They’ve been doing a really good job
Cheers 😀
The Tudor Chronograph is arguably one of the best looking chronos on the market. And built every bit as well as a Daytona and a better, more masculine size.
The Daytona looks better on women.
Some people take pleasure in badmouthing other people's stuff. It's the same with Porsche 911 and the Cayman, and the later is for the same type of people a poor man/womans Porsche - or even a hairdresser Porsche.
Tought - how many of the people calling a Tudor a poor mans Rolex actually own a Rolex and know the difference first hand (or wrist 😉)?
I disagree on the "they don't look alike" point on quite some models. Tudor does wild stuff here and there, but also cite early design language from Rolex.
Hairdressers porsche 😂😂😂 lol. Bever heard that one before.
Fair point on the looks. I definitely angled that comment based on a like for like “today” perspective. When you go into the back catalogue and knowledge of what has come before, the similarities do start to stand out more clearly
Thanks for taking the time to contribute 💪
It's even worse in the car world because these vehicles never get used to heir full extent. It does not matter how fast you car is!
I’ve had two Tudors over the years and I found them to be clunky compared to other comparable brands
Exactly! Because they're longines level.
Hypers paid pr machinery are making them to be what they're not....
I’m gonna say No. Why? Because my wallet and take home pay says so. If it’s a poor man’s Rolex, than it would be in the same ranks as a Bulova. Respectable looking watch that won’t mess with your take home pay.
Tudor requires a little more than your average to 50% of your take home pay. Even at someone that takes home $100k a year, you’re gonna have to set back 2-3 months to save considering living in expenses, investments and a living but expensive spouse.
Oh yeah, Tudor is long overdue with an All Blacks collaboration.
But a company like Oris is virtually producing the same type of timepieces at a better price. I'm not sure where they stand. $5K retail then, $2500 shortly thereafter on Ebay for a BB58. Ask 10 different people in the United States about Tudor and most would say, what is a Tudor.
Ah Kiwi in the comments section…. As a saffer, I feel priviledged. Lol. 😂
Terrific video, truly. Very well researched and presented. Question: Where do you place the Tudor Black Bay Ceramic.
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it 😃
The logic I've applied in the vid would dictate that it's an upgrade. It's basically the "same" as the entry model but with a different material (and a Metas movement).
There is though a case to be made if some materials make the watch a separate category. It's the same question that applies to something like the Titanium Yachtmaster. It's way more expensive than the base YMs, so it's in many ways an "upgrade", but making it in titanium - does that make it fundamentally different from all the other YMs, that are more or less pure dress/showcase pieces?
What would be your take?
😃
Nice analysis man. I would say back in the day, they were an affordable alternative to Rolex, especially when they were releasing the same brands as Rolex such as the submariner. They’ve since created a new brand under the Black bay name that has delineated itself from the submariner… particularly not using ceramic bezels to keep the more toolish look and feel. But then they make a Pepsi GMT, which then screams, poor man Rolex Pepsi… I think if they can stop doing that kind of stuff, then it can really delineate itself from Rolex. As beautiful as the new 5 link bracelet is on the burgundy Black bay, guess what… people still call it a jubilee style bracelet. And that’s what perpetuates the “poor man’s” Rolex moniker.
Agree to a large extent - some models feel totally unique ot today and then they throw in a pepsi gmt and muddy things…. 😳
As you mentioned, Tudor used to manufacture its products with Rolex components (cases, crowns, hands, dials, gaskets). The only difference was the name on the dial and the movement inside. It was literally produced and priced as a "poor man's" Rolex, which was the as-referenced intention of Hans Wilsdorf.
Currently, Tudor uses different cases and parts along with its own movements (i.e. non-ébauche movements). It is no longer the intention of the company to explicitly position Tudor as a "poor man's" Rolex. Instead, Tudor is positioned to compete with other entry-level luxury watch brands, which is evidenced by the pricing structure of its products.
Tudor will never be as up front as old Hans was about it but at the end of the day it's a poor man's Rolex despite the marketing.
That doesn't make them bad watches or whatever, like you said they're entry level luxury which Rolex is not. Making them by default a poor man's rolex.
I think poor man’s Rolex kind of implies that the only reason you’d get one is because you want a Rolex but don’t have the money.
And I think that’s not true for a couple of reasons. One, anyone who can afford to drop $4,500 on a Tudor can surely save up the cash to drop the requisite amount on the comparable Rolex during their time on the waitlist. And two, Tudor competes on its own merits. They simply dominate the $5k market with very little serious competition in terms of how much watch you’re getting for the money. the only whiff of a competitor on that front is some of the lower end Omegas but those are slowly pricing themselves out of the Tudor range.
Sure, they have a few pieces that are basically replays of Rolex’s greatest hits, but that doesn’t code the whole brand as just a consolation prize for people who can’t afford Rolexes.
@@tylerbrown4483 I agree with you that the moniker ("poor man's Rolex") is an evident misnomer. It was a marketing and branding strategy to sell more luxury watches back in the early 20th century, and it has continued to the present. Of course Tudor watches aren't watches for low-income people, but luxury watch consumers (who themselves are not low-income people) have that perception of Tudor nonetheless.