I own the 116610 Submariner and a BB58 blue. I picked up the Tudor (pre-owned) for 1/4 the price of the Sub. The Tudor is simply unbeatable for the performance and watch per $. To me Tudor is what Rolex used to be - simple, luxury, tough tool watches. I love both. If I was getting the monochrome I would do it on the rubber strap - super sporty look.
I own both (but bought the Black Bay 41 burgundy, 5-link, new model). Answer is NO! The Rolex does have a more quality feel to it, but not by much. The Rolex price is just stupid too. The BB41 is a fantastic watch that is not pretentious and honestly I find it more comfortable than the Sub. I wear the BB41 just a tad more than the Sub. Being the burgundy bezel, it does get more glances than the Sub. I do like the Sub, but admittedly there's been times I've regretted the purchase, but I've never felt that way with the BB41. It's just a solid watch, with great specs, movement that's less than half the price of Sub.
I was at a bbq yesterday and someone had the no date sub… it was stunning, shiny, and the clarity of dial was amazing. I was impressed. I thought (what if I showed up with a BB monochrome? Do we fight?) lol
Tudor is the wise man Rolex, right now. Rolex heritage designs (with all the rights to do it), super quality (metas movements are as good as the superlative chronometers), affordable and easy to get (no AD stupid games). On the wrist, the Tudor feels almost the same as the submariner (I own both), but I actually think I prefer the more tool and rugged look of the Tudor (it's a true definition of tool watch). One thing I really love on the Tudor, over the submariner, is the no crown guards. Man, if Rolex lauched a modern version of the Submariner Big Crown, everyone would go crazy. But Rolex, nowadays, is a prestige luxury brand, and Tudor is the enthusiast brand - Yes, Tudor is the Rolex from the 80's - 90's...
Excellent video and yes I agree with you; as an owner of a significant collection including some of the rarest Swiss complications, I completely agree that any watch priced above $500 is definitely not cheap and is on the luxury end of the spectrum.
Not the best view but In my eyes, Tudor will always be the ''budget'' Rolex. The design are so strikingly similar. If you someone offered the Rolex at a price slightly above the Tudor, 99% of the people will probably snag the Rolex. The good thing with Tudor is you can have something to a Rolex with the fraction of the price
Even though one can make that argument as there're some similarities in terms of looks but by putting them side by side you can clearly see that these're Two Different Beasts.
@@DadeMurphie that’s literally a dumb argument. Rolex isn’t even that nice in the watch world. There are plenty of watches that make it seem cheap. Hell, omega makes a nicer watch… I have a 11610 sub and it’s alright, but it’s not as nice as some of my others.
@@MrBharper1978 no, bringing up there being better or more expensive watch brands would be a dumb argument. It's completely irrelevant. The topic isn't are there better or more expensive watches than Rolex. The topic is whether or not Tudor is a cheaper compromise for those that want a Rolex. It absolutely is since that is literally what the company was formed to be. There are other cheaper watch brands as well but they don't share the same pedigree and design style to put them close to Rolex. With Tudor you get watch styled like a Rolex with a connection to the name and it's high standards at more affordable price. Yes Tudor is less affordable now than when it was founded but so is Rolex. On a relative scale it offers the same value proposition it always has.
My Tudor feels just as good as my Rolex and I wear it proudly along with my Omegas. The only time a Rolex feels different is when you tell someone you are wearing a Rolex and you get to watch their excitement about it where as a real watch person gets excited about all 3 LOL!
The Tudor is probably the best value proposition in its price range. Great proportions, top tier master chronometer movement, great design language too ! The online talk about it being a poor man’s Sub or kinda snobby and arrogant. That being said I absolutely love the Submariner! I consider the Submariner 124060 to be divers watch perfection personified, it is the most complete ,iconic, elegant, beautiful and tough diver in the watch market period ! For me atleast.
I agree with Brad. The Rolex feels more “refined” in hand. But I just can’t explain why or how. Regardless of looks, There is something intangible about how Rolex feels. Maybe it is the special steel alloy, maybe the tight tolerances of production, maybe something else.
Great side-by-side. Looking at these two primarily as tool watches, I would save the money and take the Tudor without hesitation. The one Submariner feature I'd put on my Tudor wish list is the ceramic bezel.
I mean you look at the design and it's basically identical other than the logo. So then why would someone buy the BB over a sub? Because it's cheaper and easier to obtain, in an alternate reality if the BB was a highly limited and more expensive piece, then we'd be calling the sub a poor man's BB.
The one thing I appreciate with Tudor is while Rolex is only interested in building modern Submariners, Tudor is bringing up the legacy. Since 2012 to this current Black Bay 41 Monochrome, they all pay homage to the 1950's submariners. You see no crown guards, dial with the circle around the outer indices. I like that.
The answer is obviously yes. It's literally what Tudor was founded to be and still embodies to this day. Their value proposition is cheaper and more available watches with a Rolex connection.
I think theres definitely an element of tudor being the affordable rolex sibling, but with recent models theres an argument they're breaking out of their shell. With affordable versions you would usually notice the same design but with worse implementation. I'd argue all black dial black bezel dive watches are submariner wannabes as they're all going for that same look. All things being equal no one would ever choose a seiko dive watch over a rolex sub. Bit once you get this close in terms of design and quality, there probably are people who prefer the look of the monochrome to the rolex. One is understated and less blingy, and arguably looks closer to the orginal subs, coupled with the metas movement this is where tudor can really stand as an alternative choice, not iust a cheap lookalike. Same for the Bb58 GMT which I prefer to the flashy GMT Master IIs. Its very kuch tudors take on an old recipe and I love it.
Brad, picked up my first Rolex (GMT Pepsi) two weeks ago. I absolutely love it and feel very fortunate own one. My AD definitely took care of me. Took delivery of my monochrome the week it got released. I agree with you, Tudor (recently) is not “the poor man’s Rolex”. Just my personal opinion. Great video by the way 👊🏽🇺🇸
I want to like it but it but the tudor just doesn’t do it for me. The lack of definition around the bezel, no crown guards, the snowflake hands, it’s too thick.
Prefer the bergandy on jubilee.. bit of a gmt and a sub all in1 .. monochrome way to boring for me.. the sub is lovely personally prefer the 2tone subs..🎉
I am from the era when rolex issues all the popular models in ceramic . I love it but as I have collected all I do start to find aluminum bezel very interesting . However this Tudor is too thick and huge.
The 114060 looks bigger than the monochrome. Poor man's rolex.. I don't know. Tudor prices are pretty comparative to Rolex 10 years ago. Nothing about a Tudor is cheap by any stretch. Poor man's rolex sounds like something an elitist rolex fan would say.. P.S The monochrome (read Tudor Sub) looks cleaner than the Rolex Sub, less text. Throw it on a 5 link! Cheers Brad.
Nah, a homage is. But then again a SteelDive Sub is really amazing, and a great daily beater. The Steinhart Ocean One is the ultimate poor man’s Submariner.
The submariner looks like they took the Tudor and just improved it in every single possible way. Of course the opposite is what actually happened. They took the submariner and downgraded it in every single way to get the Tudor.
Poor mans Rolex please, ref 7922 released in 1954 is and always was a sub. The the BB41 Monochrome actually plays homage to the original, which was what Rolex used to be. As a watch collector I have both and Rolex is no longer what is was, a working mans watch. The BB41 returns to that era in time if you really are a watch nerd.
I wore sub for 25 years. Gave $3k in 1999 and sold for $9k in 2023. Thought I was tired of it. Now have an itch for a new dive watch. Could buy either. Rolex has snobbed their way out of the equation. I’ll buy a Tudor or Omega because Rolex and their ADs have turned into first class pricks. Creating a “shortage” and telling me they’re scarce. LOL.
No way a poor man’s Rolex. Got a Rolex GMT master 2 root beer and a Tudor black bay S&G and I prefer my Tudor. Feels like a tank and has been my daily for 6 years from new. Really is nothing in it and always find myself wanting another Tudor not a Rolex as the rolly feels like a ripe off in comparison.
Hi Brad, I feel that those who think of Tudor as being a "poor man's Rolex" are the same as those who "know the price of everything and the value of nothing". The sentiment is without nuance: sizing matters as well as price: you can no longer get a 39mm Oyster Perpetual for example. To put the question into some kind of context, is the Malibu a poor man's Citation?
It's not complicated. Some of the stupidest Rolex fanboys are frustrated that Tudor would come up with such a perfect watch. These idiots call it a poor man's Rolex to vent their frustration.
@@DadeMurphie Obviously, you won't get far in business if you insult your target audience by calling them "people with less money." Instead, you should do what he did and say: "Quality watches at more affordable prices than the mother company Rolex but worthy of the same traditional trust."
@@maitrehg Obviously not since it happened and they are still in business. Next you're going to tell me Walmart couldn't have survived marketing to people with less money.
Tudor is expensive nowadays. I tried on the Momichrome, and was impressed to be fair. I was wearing my 14060m sub at the time, and I think that's closer to the Tudor than the modern sub. Id rather just buy neo vintage Rolex than brand new Tudor, but I think the Tudor may? Be more robust day to day. Interestingly, you can now get subs from an Ad in the uk, especially no dates, with a little patience and politeness( a few months) I still think the Rolex brand has more cache out in the real world amongst the non watch enthusiasts. I also think Longines is doing a better job of a Rolex substitute. Well finished, great history and often half the price of a Tudor. Not sure what Tudor offers that is better than Longines, other than old Rolex designs.
Definitely not 50% better, not sure if it’s 1% better. People want them for status. Even though a high percentage of Rolex wearers took out a bank loan 😂🤦♂️
I own the 116610 Submariner and a BB58 blue. I picked up the Tudor (pre-owned) for 1/4 the price of the Sub. The Tudor is simply unbeatable for the performance and watch per $. To me Tudor is what Rolex used to be - simple, luxury, tough tool watches. I love both. If I was getting the monochrome I would do it on the rubber strap - super sporty look.
When was the last time you saw a poor man dishing out 4-5k on a watch? 😂
Couldn't agree more.
Straight up facts
You think people don't buy things they can't actually afford? Look at credit card debt these days poor people buy 5K watches everyday.
Today in fact.
@@DadeMurphie Poor people don't have higher lines of credit like that.
Tudor is the attainable Rolex. Define attainable as you wish.
Surely subjective. Thanks for viewing.
Tudor isn’t Rolex. Leagues apart.
I own both (but bought the Black Bay 41 burgundy, 5-link, new model). Answer is NO! The Rolex does have a more quality feel to it, but not by much. The Rolex price is just stupid too. The BB41 is a fantastic watch that is not pretentious and honestly I find it more comfortable than the Sub. I wear the BB41 just a tad more than the Sub. Being the burgundy bezel, it does get more glances than the Sub. I do like the Sub, but admittedly there's been times I've regretted the purchase, but I've never felt that way with the BB41. It's just a solid watch, with great specs, movement that's less than half the price of Sub.
Everything you said makes the answer YES!
Somewhat analogous to Seiko and Orient. Both are great in their own right. It's the parent companies targeting different different market segments.
Got an Invicta Submariner which is just as close, cost about $50 10 years ago, still looks and works perfect.
I think the Tudor is a fantastic watch, I consider it a great buy.
They are different experiences to own and wear but definitely both great top quality watches.
It's not the poor man's Rolex... Tudor is owned by Rolex
I was at a bbq yesterday and someone had the no date sub… it was stunning, shiny, and the clarity of dial was amazing. I was impressed. I thought (what if I showed up with a BB monochrome? Do we fight?) lol
Haha, hopefully it's a friendly duel and a good conversation.
Tudor is the wise man Rolex, right now.
Rolex heritage designs (with all the rights to do it), super quality (metas movements are as good as the superlative chronometers), affordable and easy to get (no AD stupid games).
On the wrist, the Tudor feels almost the same as the submariner (I own both), but I actually think I prefer the more tool and rugged look of the Tudor (it's a true definition of tool watch).
One thing I really love on the Tudor, over the submariner, is the no crown guards. Man, if Rolex lauched a modern version of the Submariner Big Crown, everyone would go crazy.
But Rolex, nowadays, is a prestige luxury brand, and Tudor is the enthusiast brand - Yes, Tudor is the Rolex from the 80's - 90's...
you think this guy is handsome?
Tudor does not have the same design as Rolex, the slab sided case makes it like a much lower level watch
Wish Tudor would adopt a ceramic bezel, on all the black bay models.
Invicta is the rich man's Pulsar.
I have the Tudor and it’s dope! +1 second a day. Crispy clicks on the bezel. Beefy bracelet (5link).dial is really black, no shine. I love it.
It's a good one. Enjoy wearing yours!
Mine is plus one second / full week. Master Chronometer rules !
Excellent video and yes I agree with you; as an owner of a significant collection including some of the rarest Swiss complications, I completely agree that any watch priced above $500 is definitely not cheap and is on the luxury end of the spectrum.
Thanks for viewing!
Not the best view but In my eyes, Tudor will always be the ''budget'' Rolex. The design are so strikingly similar. If you someone offered the Rolex at a price slightly above the Tudor, 99% of the people will probably snag the Rolex. The good thing with Tudor is you can have something to a Rolex with the fraction of the price
I think you could say "You can have something as good as a Rolex....."
If only they would do the BB58 in mono
Would welcome that as well.
Good thought, and it wouldn't surprise me.
This. I would buy right away. I think they said they were going to do this across the line so hopefully we see that next year
Great comparison Brad!
Thanks for viewing!
Even though one can make that argument as there're some similarities in terms of looks but by putting them side by side you can clearly see that these're Two Different Beasts.
Agreed, thanks for viewing.
I agree. The Tudor is so much easier to read. Not near as much bling.
Yes they are different. One is a poor man's Rolex and the other is a Rolex 😂
@@DadeMurphie that’s literally a dumb argument. Rolex isn’t even that nice in the watch world. There are plenty of watches that make it seem cheap. Hell, omega makes a nicer watch… I have a 11610 sub and it’s alright, but it’s not as nice as some of my others.
@@MrBharper1978 no, bringing up there being better or more expensive watch brands would be a dumb argument. It's completely irrelevant.
The topic isn't are there better or more expensive watches than Rolex. The topic is whether or not Tudor is a cheaper compromise for those that want a Rolex. It absolutely is since that is literally what the company was formed to be. There are other cheaper watch brands as well but they don't share the same pedigree and design style to put them close to Rolex. With Tudor you get watch styled like a Rolex with a connection to the name and it's high standards at more affordable price.
Yes Tudor is less affordable now than when it was founded but so is Rolex. On a relative scale it offers the same value proposition it always has.
beautiful, would love to see a 37mm monochrome with 20mm lug width
They are both genetic descendents from the same watch, one is a shiny version of the other, the OG submariners were more similar to the tudor
Not any more. I collect both brands as well as Omega and I’m just as happy and proud wearing my Tudor as I am when wearing my more expensive watches.
My Tudor feels just as good as my Rolex and I wear it proudly along with my Omegas. The only time a Rolex feels different is when you tell someone you are wearing a Rolex and you get to watch their excitement about it where as a real watch person gets excited about all 3 LOL!
I really hope Tudor releases the BB58 in this monochrome black. Will buy immediately
Absolutely not. I think both of these watches can be in a person's collection.
That wasn't the question.
They’re both great watches but the Submariner no date is iconic.
Yes. Yes it is.
I used to own a 114060. I also own a BB58. I decided I didn't need two no-date black dial divers. So I traded the Sub! 'Nuff said.
The Tudor is probably the best value proposition in its price range. Great proportions, top tier master chronometer movement, great design language too ! The online talk about it being a poor man’s Sub or kinda snobby and arrogant.
That being said I absolutely love the Submariner! I consider the Submariner 124060 to be divers watch perfection personified, it is the most complete ,iconic, elegant, beautiful and tough diver in the watch market period ! For me atleast.
Thanks for viewing and I feel similarly.
I would buy a tag aquaracer or an omega seamaster before I bought a Tudor BB
I agree with Brad. The Rolex feels more “refined” in hand. But I just can’t explain why or how. Regardless of looks, There is something intangible about how Rolex feels. Maybe it is the special steel alloy, maybe the tight tolerances of production, maybe something else.
Your brain say "comon, it's a Rolex so it has to be better".
@@handlehbt The one on the Tudor is more sophisticated.
I got bb54 few months ago. I want this one
Great side-by-side. Looking at these two primarily as tool watches, I would save the money and take the Tudor without hesitation. The one Submariner feature I'd put on my Tudor wish list is the ceramic bezel.
Yes it is. anyone who can buy the Rolex will not buy a Tudor. Rather than poor, I would say Tudor is the 'middle class' version of a Rolex.
I mean you look at the design and it's basically identical other than the logo. So then why would someone buy the BB over a sub? Because it's cheaper and easier to obtain, in an alternate reality if the BB was a highly limited and more expensive piece, then we'd be calling the sub a poor man's BB.
Compared to the Submariner this Tudor is more like the Rolex for men. Beefy and big, not meant for the tiny wristed among us.
The one thing I appreciate with Tudor is while Rolex is only interested in building modern Submariners, Tudor is bringing up the legacy. Since 2012 to this current Black Bay 41 Monochrome, they all pay homage to the 1950's submariners. You see no crown guards, dial with the circle around the outer indices. I like that.
The answer is obviously yes. It's literally what Tudor was founded to be and still embodies to this day. Their value proposition is cheaper and more available watches with a Rolex connection.
I think theres definitely an element of tudor being the affordable rolex sibling, but with recent models theres an argument they're breaking out of their shell. With affordable versions you would usually notice the same design but with worse implementation. I'd argue all black dial black bezel dive watches are submariner wannabes as they're all going for that same look.
All things being equal no one would ever choose a seiko dive watch over a rolex sub.
Bit once you get this close in terms of design and quality, there probably are people who prefer the look of the monochrome to the rolex. One is understated and less blingy, and arguably looks closer to the orginal subs, coupled with the metas movement this is where tudor can really stand as an alternative choice, not iust a cheap lookalike.
Same for the Bb58 GMT which I prefer to the flashy GMT Master IIs. Its very kuch tudors take on an old recipe and I love it.
When they do this, yes. When they do their own thing (e.g., Pelagos FXD, alt metals), no.
Dont think you are poor if you buy a 4000$ watch. I might like that Tudor hour hand some day. For know it just looks wrong.
I avoid to buy Black bay (Black ver.) every model because it's too close the submariner. I prefer the Pelagos series or Burgandy black bay.
Brad, picked up my first Rolex (GMT Pepsi) two weeks ago. I absolutely love it and feel very fortunate own one. My AD definitely took care of me.
Took delivery of my monochrome the week it got released. I agree with you, Tudor (recently) is not “the poor man’s Rolex”. Just my personal opinion.
Great video by the way 👊🏽🇺🇸
You got both watches from the same AD?
@@jamess8175 yes
@@jamess8175yes
Congrats on both great pieces. Thanks for viewing and enjoy wearing both of yours!
@@brentmillertime8778 thank you brother 👊🏽🇺🇸
I want to like it but it but the tudor just doesn’t do it for me. The lack of definition around the bezel, no crown guards, the snowflake hands, it’s too thick.
Yes
Is Rolex the ‘rich’ man’s Tudor?
That’s rough I’ve worn the Tudor and it looks great until you put it next to the sub and it’s definitely the less attractive sister lol
Prefer the bergandy on jubilee.. bit of a gmt and a sub all in1 .. monochrome way to boring for me.. the sub is lovely personally prefer the 2tone subs..🎉
I am from the era when rolex issues all the popular models in ceramic . I love it but as I have collected all I do start to find aluminum bezel very interesting . However this Tudor is too thick and huge.
The 114060 looks bigger than the monochrome. Poor man's rolex.. I don't know. Tudor prices are pretty comparative to Rolex 10 years ago.
Nothing about a Tudor is cheap by any stretch. Poor man's rolex sounds like something an elitist rolex fan would say.. P.S The monochrome (read Tudor Sub) looks cleaner than the Rolex Sub, less text. Throw it on a 5 link! Cheers Brad.
Thanks for viewing.
To answer your question I would say. Is Seiko the poor man’s Grand Seiko?
Nah, a homage is. But then again a SteelDive Sub is really amazing, and a great daily beater. The Steinhart Ocean One is the ultimate poor man’s Submariner.
Hans wilsdorf made tudor for people who couldn't afford rolex so in reality the answer is yes ,but i dont know any poorman who owns a Tudor!!
Superb review.
Thanks for viewing!
There is no substitute for Rolex….if that is the watch that you really like. Great to see these side-by-side.
Tudor is like a rich man seiko. Lol
The submariner looks like they took the Tudor and just improved it in every single possible way. Of course the opposite is what actually happened. They took the submariner and downgraded it in every single way to get the Tudor.
Poor mans Rolex please, ref 7922 released in 1954 is and always was a sub. The the BB41 Monochrome actually plays homage to the original, which was what Rolex used to be. As a watch collector I have both and Rolex is no longer what is was, a working mans watch. The BB41 returns to that era in time if you really are a watch nerd.
Tissot prx is a poor mans Royal Oak, that’s probably a better comparison
Maurice Lacroix Aikon is a poor mans Royal Oak.
What is your wrist size sir?
6.75"
@@brentmillertime8778 thank you :)
Brad- new store opening…any chance y’all become a Rolex AD? Lancaster could certainly use one.
Anything is possible...
@@brentmillertime8778 Sounds like a broad hint to me!
lol its like saying a McLaren is a poor man's Koenigsegg.
I wore sub for 25 years. Gave $3k in 1999 and sold for $9k in 2023. Thought I was tired of it.
Now have an itch for a new dive watch. Could buy either. Rolex has snobbed their way out of the equation. I’ll buy a Tudor or Omega because Rolex and their ADs have turned into first class pricks. Creating a “shortage” and telling me they’re scarce. LOL.
Honestly.... I prefer the monochrome in comparison to a no date.
No way a poor man’s Rolex. Got a Rolex GMT master 2 root beer and a Tudor black bay S&G and I prefer my Tudor. Feels like a tank and has been my daily for 6 years from new. Really is nothing in it and always find myself wanting another Tudor not a Rolex as the rolly feels like a ripe off in comparison.
Love the S&G, just wish they'd offer it in a 39mm case for me!
No offense done, to those who can buy a Rolex but rather choose a Tudor 😊
Hi Brad, I feel that those who think of Tudor as being a "poor man's Rolex" are the same as those who "know the price of everything and the value of nothing".
The sentiment is without nuance: sizing matters as well as price: you can no longer get a 39mm Oyster Perpetual for example.
To put the question into some kind of context, is the Malibu a poor man's Citation?
People who state “poor man’s Rolex” are usually those that can’t afford nor own Rolex or Tudor. It’s amusing to me.
Rolex all the way.
The actual difference between poor and rich is not $5k, lol.
Rolex is poor man’s Patek then?
what poor man could pay 4 grand for a watch or would pay 4 grand
It's not complicated. Some of the stupidest Rolex fanboys are frustrated that Tudor would come up with such a perfect watch. These idiots call it a poor man's Rolex to vent their frustration.
The founder of Rolex created the company to literally be the poor man's Rolex.
@@DadeMurphie wise's man Rolex.
@@maitrehg nope Hans Wilsdorf explicitly stated it was for people with less money.
@@DadeMurphie Obviously, you won't get far in business if you insult your target audience by calling them "people with less money." Instead, you should do what he did and say: "Quality watches at more affordable prices than the mother company Rolex but worthy of the same traditional trust."
@@maitrehg Obviously not since it happened and they are still in business. Next you're going to tell me Walmart couldn't have survived marketing to people with less money.
Tudor produces nice homage watches, a bit overpriced, but good quality.
Tudor is expensive nowadays. I tried on the Momichrome, and was impressed to be fair. I was wearing my 14060m sub at the time, and I think that's closer to the Tudor than the modern sub. Id rather just buy neo vintage Rolex than brand new Tudor, but I think the Tudor may? Be more robust day to day. Interestingly, you can now get subs from an Ad in the uk, especially no dates, with a little patience and politeness( a few months) I still think the Rolex brand has more cache out in the real world amongst the non watch enthusiasts. I also think Longines is doing a better job of a Rolex substitute. Well finished, great history and often half the price of a Tudor. Not sure what Tudor offers that is better than Longines, other than old Rolex designs.
Rolex is even more expensive these days.
I sold the submariner and kept the blue BB58, best decision ever.
🤔
Yes. Rolex has date option and ceramic bezel.
Tudor is a 'Sub'stitute.
No date and alu bezel looks way better.
Definitely not 50% better, not sure if it’s 1% better. People want them for status. Even though a high percentage of Rolex wearers took out a bank loan 😂🤦♂️