It goes back to them having the same case and overall look years ago.

 

I guess you either get over it or move on. As for me, I don’t give a crap about what others say or think about my purchasing decisions.

 

I second with you on that. I don't think buying things on someone's else opinion have been a good business/investment for anyone.

 

(wait 'til he finds out the Oyster Perpetual is the poor man's DateJust which is the middle class man's Day-Date)

 

Or that Rolex is what the chauffeur wears while driving around FP Journe and Patek owners. (Saw that in some thread here)

 

For the most part Tudor looks similar to Rolex and for a fraction of the cost, so there you have it.

 

So the Tudor is a Homage watch?

 

If this was me (not intended to reflect on anyone else here or anywhere else) I would ask myself what my motive for owning it was if I cared at ALL that someone else called it a poor man's Rolex.

That's just me.....

 

I agree with you. It's not a Rolex. It doesn't look much like a Rolex, Tudor is its own brand and you have to be a bit more than "poor" to purchase one. A "poor mans Rolex" would be more like a Steinhart or any other well made Rolex look alike.

 

"Poor man's Rolex".....

Not a "Poor man's Rolex"....

 

Well, Tudor was specifically created to be a more affordable version of a Rolex, so that description would be historically correct. Over time, with separate design and manufacturing teams, it's come to have its own identity and design language.

 

It might be considered a poor man's Rolex, but they are still not cheap.

Poor people don't buy Tudor.

 

It’s silly.

1) no poor man is buying a $4k watch.

2) the price difference between a gold sub and a stainless sub is far greater than a stainless sub and a Tudor Black Bay 58.

Back when a Rolex Sub was $2,000 in todays dollars brand new, and a Tudor was far less, one might say a Tudor was a poor man’s Rolex, but both of those brands have gone way upmarket.

 

4k to one man could be a lot of money, 4 k to another man can be toilet paper. It's relative.

 

Except that's why the brand was created by Wilsdorf. Wanted to provide something for people that wanted a "Rolex" but couldn't afford one. Literally the poor man's Rolex.

If anyone is bothered by this, it says something about that person rather than the brand TBF.

 

I thought the poor man's rolex was the air king

 

From my time on WUS I can say with confidence that homages are the poor man's Rolex not a $4,000 Tudor.

 

Just more mindless media BS……

Buy what you like and enjoy it. Other’s opinions should not matter.

 

I don’t know too many poor men who can afford a modern Tudor.

 

I think the Tudor brand has earned a little more respect in recent years. However, it’s hard to shake a nickname once it has stuck. I heard it called Rolexes little sister recently by an AD that represents both brands.

I’m not opposed to a comparison in watches/cars etc, but I can see how it would be irksome if I owned one.

 

As a brand they have diverged enough to not even appear related now I think.

Once upon a time they were, as The Dark Knight stated, literally the poor man's Rolex. But the brand, the designs and the market they're aiming at is different nowadays.

 

Agreed. Which is why we badly need an independent Tudor forum on WUS. I find myself visiting the Reddit Tudor page more than this one as a result.

 

It’s accurate but does come off a little bit insulting. I’m not really a Tudor fan either, but it feels unnecessary to call it a poor man’s Rolex.

 

It is the poor mans Rolex, but not without it's own charm. After all, Rolex would never make one of these:

 

looks like you spent a bunch of money on Tudor & now you want the public to commend you on your purchase & also ratify it was the right thing for you to do.
you are very sensitive to what the public thinks about you & your purchases.....
you seem to be quite emotionally "needy" 🤪

atleast one of these 3 statements correctly describes you?

 

I can afford a Rolex but would rather buy a Tudor.

 

At this point I ironically only see it referenced this way in topics such as this one where people are advocating the independent merits of the brand.

That said, their only well known model is essentially a 50's submariner reissue.

That does not mean the brand does not stand on its own. But I also believe that for aficionados the Rolexian heritage of the brand is currently so directly apparant that you also cannot reasonably ask people to ignore it.

 

As far as I'm concerned, Tudor is more or less what Rolex once was. Who knows how long that'll last given luxury brands end up pricing themselves out of the "affordable" market in the effort to reposition themselves.

 

I’m a poor man, and this is fine.

 

The only Tudor I'd purchase. Nice one.

 

Likewise.

It's been pointed out that this perception goes back to earlier times. Funny thing is, both have come up-market since, and Tudor is now positioned about where Rolex once was in specs and relative-to-the-market pricing. So in a sense, it's Tudor that's a "rich man's watch", while Rolex has become a "very wealthy man's watch", if you get my meaning.

 

Degrading the brand by calling it a poor man's alternative is insulting to the brand and to the buyer.

a brand doesn't have feelings so pretty sure they can't feel insulted (watches on the other hand obviously have feelings, as they bond and make memories with the wearer). as for how the buyer feels, if a buyer feels insulted upon hearing that then I think many can agree that that is a buyer problem. for anyone to feel insulted based on what someone else thinks of their choice speaks volumes about that person.
I'll find out sooner or later who but someone here said this and I love it, to wit:
Adulting is hard