Hmm, before this turns in a quagmire, I’ll try to get this out.

Rolex is better in every way than Tudor. Now, let’s pause a moment. We’re talking about taking components or “fit and finish” and comparing them separately. I have a Submariner and a Black Bay. The Black Bay has a nice beveled edge on the case with polish that’s really nice. But the Sub has a better bracelet, clasp, movement, a crisper dial—and none of this means that the Tudor isn’t excellent, it’s just that the Rolex is that much better. Plus, in my experience, 904L “Oystersteel” wears much better than 316L—my Rolex bracelet looks brand new still, just about, and I couldn’t say the same for my Black Bay after owning it for the same amount of time.

I’d say if you compare them side by side, the Rolex counterpart is probably 10-20% nicer or better in each aspect. Whether that adds up to a price premium of double or more (my Submariner was around 2.7 times what I paid for my ETA Black Bay) is really up to you. Tudor’s quality is such that it can easily stand on its own as a top tier watch in its price bracket, on par with the likes of Omega, Breitling, and the like, if not better in some aspects. And there are some Tudors which put together a total package that I prefer to their Rolex counterparts. I’d take my Heritage Chronograph over a Daytona, and as much as I like the Explorer, I wouldn’t trade my Ranger for one. But, say a GMT II against the Black Bay Diet Pepsi GMT, I’d take the Rolex.

I should also point out that these aren’t rational decisions. The Tudor will always be a better value unless you plan on selling (Rolex has better resale value by far), and over decades of use, I don’t see one being more reliable or durable than the other—other than cosmetically because of the steel as I mentioned earlier. But the 904L is a draw. That Rolex makes thinner watches than Tudor does now is a draw (my Tudors are all ETA watches—12.2mm, 12.7mm, and 13mm—in-house Tudors are much thicker, annoyingly so). I’m hearing some things about Rolex AD sales practices that are turning me away from the brand in the future, if they continue in that direction, but right now, really, you can’t go wrong with either.

 

Hmm, before this turns in a quagmire, I'll try to get this out.

Rolex is better in every way than Tudor. Now, let's pause a moment. We're talking about taking components or "fit and finish" and comparing them separately. I have a Submariner and a Black Bay. The Black Bay has a nice beveled edge on the case with polish that's really nice. But the Sub has a better bracelet, clasp, movement, a crisper dial-and none of this means that the Tudor isn't excellent, it's just that the Rolex is that much better. Plus, in my experience, 904L "Oystersteel" wears much better than 316L-my Rolex bracelet looks brand new still, just about, and I couldn't say the same for my Black Bay after owning it for the same amount of time.

I'd say if you compare them side by side, the Rolex counterpart is probably 10-20% nicer or better in each aspect.

I'd love to see some macro photography to demonstrate these differences, that would be really cool. Would you say, in your opinion, that these differences are plainly evident upon casual inspection? I've only ever checked out Tudors at the AD, and I've never held a Rolex at all so I have no frame of reference. The bit about the quality of steel used is interesting as well.

Thanks for sharing

 

I have a late 1980s GMT II and had a Black Bay ETA, so not exactly apples to apples, but I thought the Tudor watch and bracelet were vey comparable in quality and finish.

 

I don't think it will be possible to find enough measurable or observable differences between the two brands to support the price difference. So much of the decision to acquire a watch from either brand will be based on personal reaction and intangibles. One's initial reaction when holding a watch, how it feels in the hand, fits on the wrist, how the dial and hands look in different light, etc., etc., all go into one watch coming out above the others. A watch from either brand will be durable and last longer than a lifetime if given proper care and maintenance.

My recommendation would be to spend a few days trying watches from both brands.

 

Tudor build quality is probably comparable to Rolex. For decades, their popular models were more or less identical--shared cases, dials, crystals, crowns, bracelets, etc.--only the movements were different (Rolex used the more premium Aegler movements, Tudor used cheaper Flueriers & ETAs).

Today, Tudor operates more independently, and with the exception of some previous gen "datejusts" available primarily in the far east, most of their modern offerings/components (including movements, which are now in-house) are distinct from Rolex. Whether (modern) Tudor's build quality is still comparable to Rolex is something I cannot answer definitively. Is it possible that Tudors now have looser tolerances, poorer fit and finish, etc.? Yes

Is it possible Rolex and Tudor are still equally well put together? Also yes. Unless you've owned a dozen comparable models of each, it's difficult, if not impossible to say for sure. Anecdotally, I think you'll find that most people will take the "Rolex build quality is better" position by default, but this assertion is more often assumed than demonstrated using objective standards/criteria. This likely owes, in part, to the hefty premium Rolex Group charges for Rolex branded watches vs. their Tudor counterparts (Sub vs. BB/Pelagos, Datejust vs. Style, etc.).

With that said, there are some objective differences between the two lines. Rolex's steel is superior to Tudor's (as others have pointed out), and the glidelock bracelet is arguably the best you will find on a modern sports watch. Movements are more of mixed bag. Rolex's movements are proven workhorses (Tudor's MT series has only been in service for 2-3 years), and they are tested/adjusted to tighter tolerances than Tudor's. However, the 3100 series (still used in most Rolex models, including the subs) is a decades old design, and while Rolex has continued to improve/update it over the years, the in-house Tudor movements tend to outperform the Rolex 3100s, in my experience. Longevity of the MT series is unknown, obviously, but the the Tudor movements are very, very good performers on the bench and on the wrist. At the high end, it's all Rolex, as Tudor does not have anything in the stable like the 4100 series in the Daytona (but keep an eye on the MT58/B01, which is also looks terrific), or the sublime 9001 in the Sky-Dweller.

 

Tudor build quality is probably comparable to Rolex. For decades, their popular models were more or less identical--shared cases, dials, crystals, crowns, bracelets, etc.--only the movements were different (Rolex used the more premium Aegler movements, Tudor used cheaper Flueriers & ETAs).

View attachment 13072401

View attachment 13072421 View attachment 13072439

Today, Tudor operates more independently, and with the exception of some previous gen "datejusts" available primarily in the far east, most of their modern offerings/components (including movements, which are now in-house) are distinct from Rolex. Whether (modern) Tudor's build quality is still comparable to Rolex is something I cannot answer definitively. Is it possible that Tudors now have looser tolerances, poorer fit and finish, etc.? Yes

Is it possible Rolex and Tudor are still equally well put together? Also yes. Unless you've owned a dozen comparable models of each, it's difficult, if not impossible to say for sure. Anecdotally, I think you'll find that most people will take the "Rolex build quality is better" position by default, but this assertion is more often assumed than demonstrated using objective standards/criteria. This likely owes, in part, to the hefty premium Rolex Group charges for Rolex branded watches vs. their Tudor counterparts (Sub vs. BB/Pelagos, Datejust vs. Style, etc.).

With that said, there are some objective differences between the two lines. Rolex's steel is superior to Tudor's (as others have pointed out), and the glidelock bracelet is arguably the best you will find on a modern sports watch. Movements are more of mixed bag. Rolex's movements are proven workhorses (Tudor's MT series has only been in service for 2-3 years), and they are tested/adjusted to tighter tolerances than Tudor's. However, the 3100 series (still used in most Rolex models, including the subs) is a decades old design, and while Rolex has continued to improve/update it over the years, the in-house Tudor movements tend to outperform the Rolex 3100s, in my experience. Longevity of the MT series is unknown, obviously, but the the Tudor movements are very, very good performers on the bench and on the wrist. At the high end, it's all Rolex, as Tudor does not have anything in the stable like the 4100 series in the Daytona (but keep an eye on the MT58/B01, which is also looks terrific), or the sublime 9001 in the Sky-Dweller.

Reposting this for page 15 as I think the distinction is important.

Vintage Tudor vs. Vintage Rolex - the two brands were much closer with Tudor sharing the same cases and much of the same design-language as Rolex. Comparing the build quality of the vintage pieces is much a more apples-to-apples comparison IMO.

Modern day Tudor vs. Modern day Rolex - for the reasons stated in Purple Hayz's post, this comparison is more difficult to ascertain and any conclusions we draw will carry some degree of speculation (unless you're a Rolex/Tudor employee or investor with insider knowledge).

 

My experience is owning 2 Tudor Tiger Chronos...very well built cases and nice watches but need repairs every 3-4 years. my watch guy told me this was typical for the watch. Service was not exorbitant, memory says under $500.

a few years ago, I sold the watches and bought Daytona in black and white...only 2 years but no issues so far. From my overall experience with Rolex, I expect these to be trouble free for years...I could be way off base, I understand the chrono complication on any watch can be a maintenance issue.

1 bro still owns his Tudor Tiger and gets it serviced when needed.

i prefer the slimmer profile of the Daytona over the Tiger.

is this worth a price premium of appx 4x? Probably not by any reasonable measure...but I’m far from reasonable in my watch purchases..

ive been a Rolex owner for 40 years and love the brand but I’m also really loving a lot of the watches that Tudor is now putting out.

side story..in the 60s, my parents took a vacation to the Caribbean. My other bro was a scuba diver and my parents bought him a Tudor diver, oyster case. They bought me a steel drum set..which thrilled me... Parents tried to get the kids gifts of relatively equal value. My drums are long gone and the Tudor is probably sitting in the back of some dresser drawer in my bros house. He wears a beater of no particular note and is not at all into watches. I’d like to find that watch.

 

My experience is owning 2 Tudor Tiger Chronos...very well built cases and nice watches but need repairs every 3-4 years. my watch guy told me this was typical for the watch. Service was not exorbitant, memory says under $500.

a few years ago, I sold the watches and bought Daytona in black and white...only 2 years but no issues so far. From my overall experience with Rolex, I expect these to be trouble free for years...I could be way off base, I understand the chrono complication on any watch can be a maintenance issue.

1 bro still owns his Tudor Tiger and gets it serviced when needed.

i prefer the slimmer profile of the Daytona over the Tiger.

is this worth a price premium of appx 4x? Probably not by any reasonable measure...but I'm far from reasonable in my watch purchases..

ive been a Rolex owner for 40 years and love the brand but I'm also really loving a lot of the watches that Tudor is now putting out.

side story..in the 60s, my parents took a vacation to the Caribbean. My other bro was a scuba diver and my parents bought him a Tudor diver, oyster case. They bought me a steel drum set..which thrilled me... Parents tried to get the kids gifts of relatively equal value. My drums are long gone and the Tudor is probably sitting in the back of some dresser drawer in my bros house. He wears a beater of no particular note and is not at all into watches. I'd like to find that watch.

FIND THAT WATCH!! lol

 

I see you’re in the U.K. a lot of Rolex ADs are also Tudor ADs so why not pop along and compare the two?

 

I see you're in the U.K. a lot of Rolex ADs are also Tudor ADs so why not pop along and compare the two?

I've tried both on, but not side by side. Impossible to make judgement on build quality and long term durability on quick inspection, hence the question to those who know!

 

I thought my Pelagos was almost as nicely finished as my sub, but couldn’t get over the sharp edges on the bracelet and clasp. It did, however, have much better bezel action than the sub

 

I thought my Pelagos was almost as nicely finished as my sub, but couldn't get over the sharp edges on the bracelet and clasp. It did, however, have much better bezel action than the sub

Seems the difference is the bracelets are very tangible. Good job I'd wear a black bay with a rubber strap..

 

Incremental gains usually equates to exponential cost increases. Especially with hobbies.

Anyone ever jump down the audiophile rabbit hole? lol

 

Incremental gains usually equates to exponential cost increases. Especially with hobbies.

Brilliantly put! Applies to so many things.

 

Ok, folks that's enough bickering. Please move on to topics where your interest level will allow you to make useful posts.

 

My Rolex is old and the case is better proportioned than its successors, it has a fold over bracelet which is similar to my 1980s Seiko chronograph.
My first gen. Tudor Black Bay has a very superior bracelet with a solid fold over and ceramic balls in the bracelet ,but the 2842 movement did not keep “ good time.
The Rolex steel is not obviously shinier or superior to Tudor ( type of steel unknown to me at this time) or indeed Zenith which I also own.

My experience ,not my opinion

 

My Rolex is old and the case is better proportioned than its successors The bracelet has a fold over bracelet which is similar to my 1980s Seiko chronograph.
My first gen. Tudor Black Bay has a very superior bracelet with a solid fold over and ceramic balls in the bracelet ,but the 2842 movement did not keep " good time.
The Rolex steel is not obviously shinier or superior to Tudor ( type of steel unknown to me at this time) or indeed Zenith which I also own.

My experience ,not my opinion

How old is your Rolex? They didn't always use 904L steel.

 

Thank you for posting those pictures, fellows. Those Tudors look look like really great watches.


It’s a given that Rolex is the better build. Tudor is more playful and daring stylistically. Rolex is more like your granddaddy’s watch.

 

Thank you for posting those pictures, fellows. Those Tudors look like really great watches.

It’s a given that Rolex is the better build. Tudor is more playful and daring stylistically. Rolex is more like your granddaddy’s watch.

 

Some additional stats on movement performance:

Here are the summary timekeeping precision scores for various movement families we've tested. The boxes are percentile rankings for each caliber, and the whiskers are 90% CI's (margins of error) around each ranking.

As you can see, both Rolex and Tudor make some of the finest performing, mass produced mechanical movements in the world. But it is Tudor, not Rolex, that currently dominates on most COSC metrics (delta, max deviation, vertical vs. horizontal, etc.). A deep dive on the top 15 individual performers brings this distinction into even sharper relief:

To be sure, that Rolex remains competitive with what is now a 30 year old movement architecture is no small feat. But Rolex's decision to stick with parachrom springs on the "new" 3200 series was a mistake, IMO. Every watch in the Top 5, and 7 of the top 8, uses a more modern, technically superior (impervious to magnetism, temperature, air pressure, etc.) silicon balance spring. Rolex spent years developing Syloxi (their own silicon composite, and by all means an excellent one), only to dump it in the women's movements (!). Meanwhile Omega, Tudor, and others are cranking out high tech, and almost completely isochronous, movements by the hundreds of thousands.

Rolex movements have certainly earned their reputation for quality and longevity, and a five year movement warranty is nothing to sneeze at. But on strictly objective performance criteria, Rolex has clearly lost a step or two. For folks more interested in aesthetics, marketing cachet, and resale value, Rolex is, and always will be, the "better" watch. But for those of us who put a premium on timekeeping excellence and movement materials/design innovation, Tudor's in-house offerings would be a compelling buy even at double their current prices.

As it stands, you can pick up a gray market Black Bay for <3K that will easily outperform any submariner at nearly triple the price. And for fellow gearheads & movement snobs, that's about as strong of a value proposition as you're likely to find. I will still happily add another Rolex or two to the stable if/when they finally get around to upgrading the subs and explorers with the 3200 series (which at least bridges some of the performance gap b/w Rolex and Tudor, from the few timing benchmarks I've found online), but I'm already on the waitlist for the BB58 (with Tudor's new, downsized MT54 series), which is reported to offer the same world-class performance as the larger Tudor movements in a package no larger than an ETA-2824.

 

Some additional stats on movement performance:

Here are the summary timekeeping precision scores for various movement families we've tested. The boxes are percentile rankings for each caliber, and the whiskers are 90% CI's (margins of error) around each ranking.

View attachment 13074231

As you can see, both Rolex and Tudor make some of the finest performing, mass produced mechanical movements in the world. But it is Tudor, not Rolex, that currently dominates on most COSC metrics (delta, max deviation, vertical vs. horizontal, etc.). A deep dive on the top 15 individual performers brings this distinction into even sharper relief:

View attachment 13074235

To be sure, that Rolex remains competitive with what is now a 30 year old movement architecture is no small feat. But Rolex's decision to stick with parachrom springs on the "new" 3200 series was a mistake, IMO. Every watch in the Top 5, and 7 of the top 8, uses a more modern, technically superior (impervious to magnetism, temperature, air pressure, etc.) silicon balance spring. Rolex spent years developing Syloxi (their own silicon composite, and by all means an excellent one), only to dump it in the women's movements (!). Meanwhile Omega, Tudor, and others are cranking out high tech, and almost completely isochronous, movements by the hundreds of thousands.

Rolex movements have certainly earned their reputation for quality and longevity, and a five year movement warranty is nothing to sneeze at. But on strictly objective performance criteria, Rolex has clearly lost a step or two. For folks more interested in aesthetics, marketing cachet, and resale value, this may not matter. But for those of us who put a premium on timekeeping excellence and movement materials/design innovation, Tudor's in-house offerings would be a compelling buy even at double their current prices.

As it stands, you can pick up a gray market Black Bay for <3K that will easily outperform any submariner at nearly triple the price. And for fellow gearheads & movement snobs, that's about as strong of a value proposition as you're likely to find. I will still happily add another Rolex or two to the stable if/when they finally get around to upgrading the subs and explorers with the 3200 series (which at least bridges some of the performance gap b/w Rolex and Tudor, from the few timing benchmarks I've found online), but I'm already on the waitlist for the BB58 (with Tudor's new, downsized MT54 series), which is reported to offer the same world-class performance as the larger Tudor movements in a package no larger than an ETA-2824.

Superb post. It's great to be able to tap into such knowledge. Indeed how the Rolex movements have stood the test of time is quite amazing. For sure their durability cannot be questioned. Tudor as a young company in its current iteration is growing rapidly. I just hope all their movements prove to be sturdy going forward.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

 

Deleted.

 

Tough call on the two brands? I really like both my Rolex watches Explorer II and DS4000. Which to me are keepers for sure. However i have 5 Tudors watches i like equally? Very different in that the Tudor are generally a little bigger which i like. Yes they do seem to show more wear over the same time period i agree.Rolex to me is a very classic look where Tudor tends to explorer a whole different approach in their designs? Both excellent watches in my book glad to own both brands but i seem to wear my Tudor Pelagos mostly? That watch being titanium does show wear fairly easily however? Chevy vs GMC is that fair to say? Both excellent IMHO

 

both built very well

 

Rolex might have an edge in several areas, but really both are terrific watches.

 

Know one thing, if all things were equal, this will command a premium.

Yes, Rolex makes a better quality watch over Tudor. Yet, the Crown is worth more than the Shield.

 

Rolex at the end of the day is going to be of higher “quality”, however Tudor is a great reliable brand at simply a lower price point. So I’m not saying Tudor is a cheaper, crappier build quality brand; simply that Rolex has nicer finishing, possibly materials and over detailing at a higher price point.

 

If I had to put a number on it, I would say that Tudor is 90% the quality of Rolex. Does that 10% difference justify the 2x price difference? Only the buyer can decide.

 

This is perhaps the truest point when it comes to watches. Above a certain price point you are not receiving product functionally, what you pay for is desirability, craftmanship/finishing. Tudor vs Rolex, SARB vs GS etc. Is the extra worth it? Like you say that is purely down to the purchaser. Personally for me, I have never yearned to wear the crown, as bulletproof as the watches may be, it is worn by most as a status symbol. If i can get something that is 90% there, at <50% the cost without the flashy association then sign me up.

I understand many/ most of the Rolex loving community on here will not wear their watches as a status symbol, but they probably make up a minority of all Rolex owners

 

Judging from the photos here, I'd say whatever quality difference is slight! Many parts had to come off the same line in the past. I can see why Tudor went away from the submariner and oyster designs that made them so close to the Rolex.

I'd say the main difference now a days is in the movement quality...

Let's face it, the Rolex price is very hard to justify. If I cared that much about the Brand name, I'd just drop $5,000 on their cheapest one. But more likely, I'd just get their hipper brother, the Tudor Black Bay, probably 90% of the Rolex experience at half the cost...

 

That last paragraph is exactly where I'm at

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

 

:roll:

 

OP is doing it wrong. It's supposed to be Rolex vs Omega or Grand Seiko. I'm not prepared for this argument.

 

I'm sure that subject has be done ad infinitum. I'm more interested with how much of Rolex quality trickles down to its younger sibling and it seems quite a lot.
I think the general convention is quality between Rolex and Omega is roughly on par. Tudor currently exists to take money off Omega et al, not Rolex. If you are getting 90% Rolex quality for ⅔ price of an Omega, for example, then it makes Tudor an attractive proposition.
Sorry you are not prepared for this argument

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

 

Thanks for the interesting comparison .

 

As someone who owns both brands, Submariner date, Milgauss and Black Bay Bronze I would echo much of the discussion. The overall finish and quality of Rolex is clear between the two brands. That said I think the overall quality of my Tudor is fantastic and far better than anything in the same category.