Brand Perception

[FuzzyB]

I have a Rolex and I have a Tudor. Two watches from the same company, yet my impression of each is quite different.

To some, there is a stigma associated with Tudor that it's a second rate watch that wants to be like its big brother Rolex but falls short. In other words, the only reason to bought a Tudor was because you couldn't afford the Rolex.

Others look at Tudor as being able to get the Rolex quality for a fraction of the price.

How do you perceive Tudor and Rolex?

Given the choice, what would you rather have, a Sub or a Pelagos/Black Bay? An Explorer or a Ranger? Daytona or Heritage Chronograph?

If you were choosing based on looks alone, would that change your decision?

If the Pelagos was sold by Rolex and Tudor sold the Sub, would you want the Rolex or the Tudor?

[Seriously]

I think I'd much rather have a Tudor than a Rolex , by a country mile !

Don't know why , but Rolex have never done anything for me... in the slightest , but some (only some) of the Tudor's I've quite liked..


I certainly wouldn't be getting it because it was cheaper than a rolex (see above) , I'd be buying it because I liked the Tudor.


See, I'd have this one

[Chase]

For me I see Tudor as its own brand within the Rolex group. Largely this is evidenced by the leeway they have in their designs and what to put out, not just in terms of design but also in size and material selections.

I had Tudors first, then brought Rolex. I certainly didn't stop buying or enjoying Tudors because I had moved up some artificial ladder. And I don't feel inferior oje day were I wearing a Tudor instead of a Rolex. In fact I was once asked if I had to pick one single brand that I had to buy all my watches from here on out and I picked Tudor.

[Chase]

Have also heard other suggest a Tudor is like buying a Rolex without the expensive service requirement.

I can't really tell them they are wrong.

[meijlinder]

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

[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]

Have also heard other suggest a Tudor is like buying a Rolex without the expensive service requirement.

I can't really tell them they are wrong.

With Rolex's new 10-year service interval, the actual difference in servicing may be much smaller. If Tudor makes a move to use in-house movements in more of their watches, it may actually be cheaper to service a Tudor over that time span.

[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.

[Chase]

With Rolex's new 10-year service interval, the actual difference in servicing may be much smaller. If Tudor makes a move to use in-house movements in more of their watches, it may actually be cheaper to service a Tudor over that time span.

A very good and valid point.