Seiko's LX line
Nomos

Actually Tudor is fairly unique as being Rolex's bridge brand.

 

Well breitling and tudor literally share movements. Breitling do offer a lot more expensive options - but by and large they get to those prices with precious metals and diamonds.

So I would say breitling. Maybe also nomos, SINN, montblanc.

Tudor is a heavy step above brands like longines, oris, and monta IMO.

 

In this order of precedence...

Patek
IWC, Rolex
Omega, Zenith
Tudor, Longines, Oris, Grand Seiko
Nomos, Tag, Ball
Hamilton

Purely subjective with some nuances open for debate but should generally be, on a rough order, correct.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

In this order of precedence...

Patek
IWC, Rolex
Omega, Zenith
Tudor, Longines, Oris, Grand Seiko
Nomos, Tag, Ball
Hamilton

Purely subjective with some nuances open for debate but should generally be, on a rough order, correct.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Bro what even is that list?

Oris / Longines = Grand Seiko

Oris / Longines > Nomos

???

 

I would put them in league with IWC, Breitling, (known to heavily overprice for what you get) but still a touch below the majority of omega pieces. This is particularly true with the bb and Pelagos ranges; question is if they can break out of that mould and compete in a similar fashion. To date they haven’t imo.

 

Tudor are in their own little niche.

If we can roughly use the following scale:

Affordable = <$1000
Mid-Range = $1000 - $3000
Entry Luxury = $3000 - $8000 (rough, out-of-my-butt number)
Mid Luxury = $8000 - $20000
Ultra = >$20000

Then Tudor straddles the top of mid-range and up to the middle of entry luxury. They have models that fall in both categories.
What I can say though, is that they are higher than Longines but lower than Omega. In terms of Swiss watch sales though, they are really small fry, making up less than 1 or 2% of the total market value.
Grand Seiko straddles the next bracket up, in my mind. That is, they are in entry luxury and mid luxury.

 

I've owned Omega, TAGHeuer, and Tudor.

The Tudor is definitely more solid than the TAG, and the Omega is better finished than the Tudor. However the Tudor Manufacture caliber in my Pelagos is the most rock solid movement in my collection.

Cheers!

 

At least in terms of pricing, Tudor seems to be aimed squarely at Omega.

Tudor Black Bay / Pelagos ~ Omega Seamaster Pro / Planet Ocean.

Tudor Heritage Chrono / Black Bay Chrono ~ Omega Speedmasters.

Tudor North Flag / Ranger ~ Omega Railmaster / Aqua Terra.

 

Are you sure about that?
Because I can afford a Tudor Heritage Ranger but an Aqua Terra is (unfortunately) out of my budget.

 

The only thing that's really comparable would be TAG's better quality collections, the chrono Carreras, Monaco, Autavia etc. Possibly Nomos, but that's a completely different style.

Tudor it's probably the best value brand. Not the cheapest, but the quality, reliability, product support, etc are a clear cut above the cheaper brands and their prices are a good deal less than something like Omega.

 

Tudor is equal to Breitling and Omega, although Tudor may cost a little less.
Sinn is definitely there.
Grand Seikos that cost the same as Tudor are direct competitors, if not a little better in terms of finishing and attractiveness.

 

sorry, but way off

I own both Oris & Longines - and they are comparable to eachother (I prefer Longines) my Tudor is a notch above these -

Rolex & Omega up again but GS I place higher than them all.

You cannot equate Oris n Longines as decent mass produced watches with GS - a small run (35000 a year made in the GS factory, but not all GS badged/level - against Rolex 850,000) GS is hand finished, hand assembled watch

Have you ever looked at a GS, under a loop??? Try it - look at the bevelling on their batons & hands, the dial finish, case polish - extraordinary and IMHO competes with the best Swiss houses. Sure, Patek may be twice the watch, but not worth 10x the price.

 

 

A little above, or analogous with, Breitling. Just a soupcon below Omega, but gaining ground. Blows Tag out of water.

 

The problem with classification and ordering is that although it silences the voices in the head, it's hidebound by branding and personal values. For example if you like Tudor and dislike Omega, you will overvalue the former and undervalue the latter, even though they are close in price and spec.

I also agree putting Longines next to GS is more than a bit bizarre.

 

For example if you like Tudor and dislike Omega, you will overvalue the former and undervalue the latter, even though they are close in price and spec.

I tried my best; own two Tudors and a Rolex, but no Omegas. I factored in Omega's general contribution to horology and the industry at a number of levels, which I feel trump Tudor's even though I prefer Tudor. It's not *that* difficult to be impartial if you try. I do, however, think where Tudor is gaining on Omega is in the 'value proposition', as much as that can be attributed to luxury watches in general.

 

Very subjective as all these sort of questions are.

But I will go with the biggest watch dealer in the high street in the U.K., Goldsmiths.

They group watches into areas, and I would suggest that they think these represent levels of quality/finish/ price.

Longines/Rado/Oris/Montblanc all live in one display, along with Tag and Breitling in some branches.

Tudor live on their own, as do Omega and Rolex, with Omega and Rolex occupying large window slots.

So read into that what you will.

 

A purely and completely subjective exercise, which as usual can yield little if any insights. All you get here is a pissing war between the same old camps--those that love brand Y but hate brand X, and so forth. I don't agree with ANY of the rankings suggested so far, but that doesn't make me any more wrong, or right, than any one else--ultimately, what is the point of this exercise--what can we learn, as a collective, from it? Some folks will rank Tudor high, others low, and some in between--and, so what?

 

Quote ['this is purely and completely a subjective exercise' ]

Timefleas, surprised a man of your clear thinking thinks this - yes, subjectivity will inevitably be expressed here, such as the OP's "I will never pay 4k for a seiko" but there are surely several objective criteria that establish a reasonable hierarchy. There are quantifiable differences between Seiko & Grand Seiko - and Longines and Rolex and

I would be interested in seeing your list

 

Having owned most brands short of high end, I would categorize as below-

High end- Patek, Lang, VC, AP
Lower High end- JLC, GP (I think, i have not owned), Breguet
Upper Mid Tier- Rolex, GS, IWC, Zenith
Mid Tier- TUDOR, Omega, GS quartz, Tag, Breitling
***Personally, i don't like putting Tag and Breitling in same group as Tudor/Omega but i feel it fits. I have found personally that Tag/Breitling are not as well made as Tudor/Omega (personal opinion).
Low Mid- Longines, Oris, B&R

Of course, many brands left out.

 

to me Tudor is below IWC, Grand Seiko, Omega etc.

they are a more expensive Longines, a more expensive Oris, a more expensive Frederique Constant...they don't really offer anything new design wise

Yes they have a good in-house movement, but to me a watch is more than just a movement...its supposed to speak to you, and with Tudor all I get is "Meh"

which I think is the main reason that even with the Rolex connection and even with the in-house movement, Tudor still hasn't managed to become mainstream. They just don't have anything with the WOW factor to it.

 

Peers to TUDOR... hmmm... tricky. To look at this we hv to look at their products in technical development, pricing, last by brand popularity, without looking at it's relation with it's relation with older brother ROLEX.

from SWATCH Group, LONGINES.
Sports watches from LONGINES are much affordable than TUDOR with the use of generic common premium movements. Most of the premium movements used by LONGINES are in fact developed by SWATCH Group ETA, and used widely by TUDOR on their dress pieces. It's only from the BlackBay, TUDOR sports watches become more pricier than any other marques with their in-house (which i suspect is "re-engineered" Rolex movement). A look into dress watches by TUDOR, their watches only affordable models are those without any sort of PVD gold decorations as well as diamond bits. LONGINES dress pieces can get more expensive than TUDOR when bits and pieces of gold and diamonds kicks in.

from other group, TAG HEUER, Maurice Lacroix.
When it comes to in-house development, only TAG's inhouse chronograph sets the status of skills apart from TUDOR. TUDOR wins in capturing consumers attention with their strap equipped BBs in price, when TAG's ETA/Sellitas Calibre5 Aquaracer with metal bracelets are priced to match. Dress watches is not TAG's forte when compared to TUDOR and LONGINES... but still equally expensive. TAG hv more Calibre16 ETA/Sellitas Chronographs than TUDOR modular Chronographs with their Heritage range when it comes to affordable choice.
The price we pay for Maurice Lacroix, mostly falls onto their modification of common movements made by ETA/Sellitas. Sports watch wise, what we see from the affordables doesn't seems to carry any modifications on the movements as movement stability is a concern.

from the INDEPENDENTS, ORIS.
When it comes to affordability, ORIS 65 seires dive watch falls in between LONGINES and TAG HEUER, while TUDOR's BB is priced higher with it's equipped in-house movements. Dress watch wise, event with decorations of PVD GOLD and diamonds(which i can't remember seeing one in recent years releases), ORIS offerings are much affordable than LONGINES with exceptions of included complications. Chronographs from ORIS are not so priced competitively when compared to basics from TAG and LONGINES.

So... each marques hv it's draws and cons. To put TUDOR onto different running fields in different aspect, TUDOR wins and loses.

 

There are a couple ways to approach the comparison- quality comparison or brand prestige comparison. As for brand prestige, Tudor ranks lower than brands like Omega, Breitling and IWC. As far as quality, Tudor can certainly hang with lower priced models from Breitling and Omega. A person could reasonably compare the Black Bay with the last gen Seamaster or SuperOcean, and prices are similar. The new Omega Seamaster stepped it up with their new movement, so it's not as comparable.

Of course, when you consider value and quality comparisons, brands like Oris, Sinn, Fortis and some others compare well to Tudor for a lower price. Tudor really is a bridge brand, looking to find it's place in some ways still.

 

Great thread but I still do not think anyone has actually answered the original question yet! And, yes, I would take a GS (like price) over a Tudor any day of the week! Ultimately, I would not be surprised to find that Tudor is essentially in a class of its own as many have suggested but I am sure there is something comparable to a Tudor so keep bantering! Interesting that there have been no Micro Brand responses.

 

most microbrands don't have in-house movements, and that puts Tudor in a special category

if a microbrand has an in-house movement, they call themselves an independent and charge $20,000-30,000 for the same watch.

as far as Tudor I think as most nicer brands move up market, Tudor will have a chance to shine a little bit more. Provided they don't try to chase the rest and raise their prices too.

 

As a fan of both brands, I have yet to own an AT or Ranger, but I do *think* of Omega as being 2x the price of the Tudor (in this comparison). So, I did a quick look and I was pretty close.

MSRP of Omega AT $5500/5700 rubber/bracelet
MSRP of Tudor Ranger $2675/3000 leather/bracelet

That's all I've got. I think Omega is still a significant cut above Tudor, but that in no way diminishes my affinity for Tudor and the cool pieces they're turning out.

 

Sure to be contentious but I can’t help thinking of Tudor and Breitling as stable mates.

 

Way too many to list, IMHO.....

 

I think that, like big brother, Tudor is making a market segment of it’s own - in Rolex’s case, an audacious play for high volume industrialised luxury which ought to be a contradiction, in Tudor’s case offering all the features that the mid tier depends on at (the upper end of) entry level pricing. At least in respect of the models with in house movements Tudor is offering more at its price point - as well as more than others at much higher price points - to an almost ridiculous degree.

It’s almost like Wilsdorf are milking the brand phenomenon to a literally unrivalled degree with Rolex, and simultaneously subverting the whole notion with Tudor. They’re canny lads.

 

Tudor is Rolex JV. Get an Omega.

 

I think what most comparisons of brands miss is the breadth of achievement of different brands. Comparisons of finishing and quality between competing watches from different brands says very little about how great or poor a brand is. It only says how specific models stack up against each other.

What makes one brand greater than another is much more than fit and finish, it is more about horological achievement which generally equates to complication. For example, while entry level IWCs use ETA movement bases, the top level IWCs are completely inhouse. They make an inhouse automatic chronograph movement as well as an inhouse perpetual calendar and Tourbillion The much vaunted Rolex can't even manage to add a day wheel to their chronos and used other maker's movements as bases for their chronos until they finally developed the 4130 movement in 2000. IWC equal to Tudor? Give me a break. It isn't even clear that Rolex is equal to IWC.

Interestingly enough if you looked through TAG's production over the past decade or so you'd see some outrageous pieces far beyond what Rolex has produced. Tourbillions, belt driven movements, watches with 360,000 bph movements, stuff that no one else is doing and most anyone else is incapable of doing. What sets the top of watch makers apart from the rest is making things which are incredibly mechanically complicated to achieve, as well as fit and finish. Tourbillions, perpetual calendars, rattrapantes, moonphases, sonneries, ultra-thins the stuff that is mechanically amazing. Tudor is nowhere on this scale. Rolex is at the bottom rung.

Caring about having an inhouse mechanical movement is a low bar. It is a trivial achievement for a watch company compared to making an inhouse perpetual calendar or an entirely new movement type like the Spring Drive or Zenith's Defy Lab super oscillator movement.

This thread is supposed to be about comparing brands. Doing so by comparing specific models is about comparing models. Compare brands by looking at the full breadth of what a brand has achieved, not how some of its specific models compare with competing models of other brands.

 

I think what most comparisons of brands miss is the breadth of achievement of different brands. Comparisons of finishing and quality between competing watches from different brands says very little about how great or poor a brand is. It only says how specific models stack up against each other.

What makes one brand greater than another is much more than fit and finish, it is more about horological achievement which generally equates to complication. For example, while entry level IWCs use ETA movement bases, the top level IWCs are completely inhouse. They make an inhouse automatic chronograph movement as well as an inhouse perpetual calendar and Tourbillion The much vaunted Rolex can't even manage to add a day wheel to their chronos and used other maker's movements as bases for their chronos until they finally developed the 4130 movement in 2000. IWC equal to Tudor? Give me a break. It isn't even clear that Rolex is equal to IWC.

Interestingly enough if you looked through TAG's production over the past decade or so you'd see some outrageous pieces far beyond what Rolex has produced. Tourbillions, belt driven movements, watches with 360,000 bph movements, stuff that no one else is doing and most anyone else is incapable of doing. What sets the top of watch makers apart from the rest is making things which are incredibly mechanically complicated to achieve, as well as fit and finish. Tourbillions, perpetual calendars, rattrapantes, moonphases, sonneries, ultra-thins the stuff that is mechanically amazing. Tudor is nowhere on this scale. Rolex is at the bottom rung.

Caring about having an inhouse mechanical movement is a low bar. It is a trivial achievement for a watch company compared to making an inhouse perpetual calendar or an entirely new movement type like the Spring Drive or Zenith's Defy Lab super oscillator movement.

This thread is supposed to be about comparing brands. Doing so by comparing specific models is about comparing models. Compare brands by looking at the full breadth of what a brand has achieved, not how some of its specific models compare with competing models of other brands.

Basically everyone on this website ignores the things TAG has done because it doesn't fit the narrative.