re: TGIF Watch thread

quote:

---

I could understand this take with Tudor of old,

---

It is hard for them to shake the albatross of being a poor man's Rolex when they actually were exactly that and it was what they were designed to be. Since their re-introduction to the US they have a full catalog of watches that can stand on their own.

quote:

---

just have a hard time putting money in a "value brand" ROLEX, let alone anything. For the money I'd opt for Omega/Breitling IMO.

---

I always look at this take as a dig on Rolex. I'll preface it that I'm an avowed Rolex enthusiast, so there is that bias. Tudor is geared to aggressively swipe at Omega and Breitling. They are making watches with natural appeal because they take so many historic cues from vintage Rolex, but with some of the things that make them uniquely Tudor, unlike the previous incarnation of Tudor which was to a great degree a less expensive Rolex. This is nice for the Rolex enthusiast who might appreciate certain design elements of heritage Rolex pieces but might not have the means or desire to get into the market for the most sought after vintage models (there are of course many pitfalls dealing with expensive vintage watches), and going back to the past is something Rolex almost never does.

The nice think about most Rolex is that they are essentially currency. Buy modern pieces at retail or buy carefully curated good condition vintage, and one can almost certainly change them back into currency with little loss or possibly profit depending on the model one purchases. The number of non-Rolex branded watches this works with pales in comparison, is very limited to hype pieces among some prestige brands (AP RO line, a number of PP only to name a few), but very few examples from Omega and even less so Breitling.