Brand Perception

[OhDark30]

And also, everyone knows rolex, it almost takes a wis to know Tudor. Makes them all the more interesting to me.

I like my Tudor as a stealth Rolex. I'm getting the tech (movement, Oyster case) at a fraction of the price. Was looking for vintage DJs and Air Kings when I stumbled on my Oyster Prince.

And yes, I like that the styling is a bit more out there :-)

[meijlinder]

I like my Tudor as a stealth Rolex. I'm getting the tech (movement, Oyster case) at a fraction of the price. Was looking for vintage DJs and Air Kings when I stumbled on my Oyster Prince.

And yes, I like that the styling is a bit more out there :-)

Those indices are just great. Love how they incorporated the rose at 12

[uchinanchu]

Love some Rolex models, love some Tudor models, would never buy some Rolex models and the same for Tudor, can't say I look at the brands any deeper or in more detail than that. Price is what it is, no sense in my getting too worked up about it unless there's a watch literally out of reach affordability wise . . .

[tribe125]

Despite their family connections, I don't see one brand through the prism of the other.

Are Omegas for people who can't afford Breguets? Is a Longines an over-priced Tissot? It's hard to see why people would dwell on the inter-relatedness of Rolex and Tudor when they generally don't do it with the products of other companies. I guess it's the inescapable 'Rolex factor'.

Tudor doesn't offer the quality of Rolex (the company would never let that happen), but that doesn't diminish Tudor. Rolex doesn't offer the freshness of current Tudor designs, but that doesn't diminish Rolex. Tudor benefits from the Rolex 'halo', which may give it an advantage over comparable Swatch brands. Rolex's luxury position isn't affected by cheaper products coming out of the same factory gate.

With regard to individual models, a Tudor Pelagos would not sell at Rolex prices, even if it had 'Rolex' on the dial. It's not flashy enough for most Submariner buyers. A Sub would certainly sell at Tudor prices, and with Tudor on the dial. I wouldn't buy a Rolex Pelagos but I'd buy a Tudor Submariner (or I would if I liked the look of the current Sub).

Like Seriously, the watch I would really like to have is the Tudor North Pole. It has a compelling freshness, while still embracing some 1970s elements. Rolex would never be allowed to make it.

[FuzzyB]

My impression of Tudor has changed quite a bit over the past few years. One reason for that is that my first Tudors included a vintage Ranger and a Prince Oysterdate, shown below.



The Oysterdate, in particular, is very much a Rolex-light model. Almost an identical copy of the Rolex Datejust, mine had a Rolex-signed caseback, Rolex-signed crown, and Rolex-signed bracelet. The only difference between the two was the dial and the movement.

Based on that experience, my impression of Tudor was simply as a Rolex on a budget.

That impression did not change until the Black Bay and Heritage Chronograph came out. For the first time, it made me think of Tudor as an independent company and not as a maker of cheapened Rolex models.

Even then, those models just seemed to be mining Tudor's past. The Pelagos was the most refreshing of the new models as it wasn't rehashing an old model even though it used quite a few historical design cues.

It was not until the North Flag was announced that I truly appreciated Tudor in its own right. Even without the in-house movement, the North Flag continued the progress first shown by the Pelagos by using past design cues to create a modern design.

[OhDark30]

Thanks, m!
Yes, I like that particularly too - the rose is there, but not visually distracting from the crisp geometry of the design :-)

[Der Amf]

The new Tudor and Rolex movements were announced at the same time, and in terms of appearance they've plenty in common. I'm looking forward to someone knowledgeable getting their hands on both and explaining what the relationship is between the two, in terms of design, materials, quality of parts etc

[-JP]

With Rolex and Tudor you could never win with brand perception. Tudor and Rolex are the same where a true enthusiast is wearing it for the appreciation of what it is while the non WIS will say it's just a Tudor you should of got
The Rolex for a little more money and Rolex can be perceived as your just trying to show off. Haven't come across a brand yet that did not get criticized and Tudor and Rolex are probably top of that positive and negative perception list for sure

[Raza]

It's that old Boxster/911 argument that continues to make no sense.

Tudors are great for what they are. Far more whimsy and creativity in design. Who cares about a common ownership? Rolex would never have put out the Heritage Chronograph.

Rolex, in many ways, has become a victim of its own success. No radical designs; for the prices they command, the customers demand only incremental changes and even then complain about them. I mean, all this talk of the "maxi" Submariner.....it looks basically the same. I couldn't tell the difference unless you put a new one next to an old one, and I'm told I have a relatively excellent attention to detail. Their success allows them to sell their watches and exorbitant prices, alienating many and causing some to scoff at how overpriced they are. And then some people respond with the "it's not overpriced if people pay the price", which is technically true from an economic standpoint, but has little to do with reality.

And yet, Rolex manages to stay away from the criticism that another successful and mainstream brand is drenched in all over the Internet. If unearned disdained were hurled tomatoes, TAG Heuer would be stained red. I don't understand why, but that's the reality of it. And Rolex continues to have an allure that few can match. Not even a 20 year modern James Bond connection can make people forget the Rolex with the ill-fitting NATO from oh so long ago or overshadow the fact that while James Bond wears an Omega, Daniel Craig generally wears a Rolex.

It makes you a target. With a Rolex, you're saying "I know a lot about watches; I respect the history and tradition and innovation that this company has" or "I bought an expensive watch that I've heard of (and I probably think Ferraris only come in red)”. It's a strange dichotomy.

[OrangeSport]

It's that old Boxster/911 argument that continues to make no sense.

I would probably by a Boxster/Caymen if I wanted a sports car in that price range. They are hard to beat. Would I buy a 911 if I was looking +/- £100K? Probably not..