WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

Trying to understand Tudor

5K views 47 replies 32 participants last post by  NathanielGoodtimes 
#1 ·
Tudor makes some of my favourite designs hands down. I love the Pelagos, and the black bay would probably be warring with the Aqua Terra for my most coveted watch, were it not for the lack of date window. The models shown recently at Basel just reinforced this, as I loved each one.

I'm just trying to understand how they fit in to the price scale, and why they command the price they do, especially the black bay. I know Tudor was started by Rolex as an entry level brand of sorts, though it has long been its own company with its own distinct style. But exactly how is this the case? Originally, I was under the impression that the body, case, hands and bracelet were basically built to Rolex standards in terms of fit, finish, and tolerances, but the cost difference was due to the use of (for lack of a better way to put this) mass market ETA movements instead of Rolex calibers.However now Tudor is using its own impressively specced in house movements, and yet the price is still miles below Rolex.

If this is the case, I must assume that they don't manufacture to Rolex standards (not a criticism, most companies don't). If this is the case, then as beautiful as they are, how do the older models cost as much as they do? They compare to omega pricing and likely build , but use stock, unmodified ETA movements, mostly without chronometer certification . With this in mind, why wouldn't they be closer to, say, an eterna kon tiki, or higher end Hamilton? The prices seem to be just pulled out of thin air...

I'd love to hear if anyone has some insight here.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
See less See more
#2 · (Edited)
I'm just trying to understand how they fit in to the price scale, and why they command the price they do, especially the black bay. I know Tudor was started by Rolex as an entry level brand of sorts, though it has long been its own company with its own distinct style. But exactly how is this the case? Originally, I was under the impression that the body, case, hands and bracelet were basically built to Rolex standards in terms of fit, finish, and tolerances, but the cost difference was due to the use of (for lack of a better way to put this) mass market ETA movements instead of Rolex calibers.However now Tudor is using its own impressively specced in house movements, and yet the price is still miles below Rolex.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The answer is economics and marketing. A Rolex is not 2.5-4x the price of a Tudor because it costs more to manufacture, it is just a brand in a different price category that offers (mostly intangible) benefits. I'm not saying Tudor quality = Rolex quality, but a Tudor isn't priced lower than a rolex because their watches cost several magnitudes less to produce. The Rolex model closely follows the strategy employed by the diamond industry, IMO. Artificial supply, price-control and marketing (a woman's best friend).

The in-house movement move, IMO, is also just a reflection of current watch trends. It is expected that a 'quality' luxury watch should have an in-house movement, and that adds to the prestige, horological merit, and branding which feed-forward into price-justification IMO. Also, ETA supply is drying up.

There is nothing logical about watches. It is all romanticism.
 
#5 ·
I was speaking with someone whose job is to sell "rare" batches of cognac to extremely wealthy clients, mostly asian and middle east buyers. The price is astronomical. This fellow was telling me that the company's biggest fear was that they would be "exposed", meaning that it would surface that their product is in no way shape or form able to command the price asked. Its a great cognac but just that and THEY KNOW IT.

The lesson here is that you simply cannot look for inherent qualities in cognac, bags or watches to justify the price. Its marketing, history, positioning, etc...

Tudor have become EXCEPTIONAL watches, I own 2. I know there is much value in a tudor but honestly don't look to the price to tell you much about the product itself, the price is there to tell you about the buyer.
 
#37 ·
I was speaking with someone whose job is to sell "rare" batches of cognac to extremely wealthy clients, mostly asian and middle east buyers. The price is astronomical. This fellow was telling me that the company's biggest fear was that they would be "exposed", meaning that it would surface that their product is in no way shape or form able to command the price asked. Its a great cognac but just that and THEY KNOW IT.
Like that time when the entire diamond industry collapsed after everyone found out about DeBeers artificially manipulating the supply :)
 
#6 ·
There are a lot more costs that Rolex allocates to its watches than simply manufacturing and development. The biggest portion of these would be marketing-related costs, which I would wager are substantially greater for the Rollie than the Tudor.

The other important thing to keep in mind is the size of the margins that Rolex is working with. I'm sure the Tudor is a lower margin product (although not small by any stretch).
 
#7 ·
I'd suspect current vintage Tudor models cost so much because of Tudor's recent surge in popularity. Not only has Tudor returned to the US, but it now employs in house movements, fantastic bracelets and tech, and cool designs. It's a hot property right now, so obviously their older stuff is going to boom along with it. I'd suspect in the future if Tudor's popularity wanes, their vintage models might as well (just a theory though).
 
#9 ·
You have to ask the other version of the question too to get a more complete picture.
Why are Hamilton watches so cheap?

Very little internal manufacturing.
Support from vast SwatchGroup resources.
Long model life-spans that re-use the same cases/ bracelets/hands.
General lower attention to detailing.

Take similar looking watches from different SwatchGroup brands and in most cases, you'll see a clearer picture of why one is more expensive than the other.
 
#11 ·
If this is the case, I must assume that they don't manufacture to Rolex standards (not a criticism, most companies don't). If this is the case, then as beautiful as they are, how do the older models cost as much as they do? They compare to omega pricing and likely build , but use stock, unmodified ETA movements, mostly without chronometer certification . With this in mind, why wouldn't they be closer to, say, an eterna kon tiki, or higher end Hamilton? The prices seem to be just pulled out of thin air...
The prices are a result of supply and demand. There are not all that many vintage Tudors about, they were never made in great numbers.

They also cost more now because they cost more back then than a Hamilton or Eterna. This watch cost roughly $400 new in the late 1970s, a decent amount of money. I worked at a Rolex store and could not afford one back then, I made $3.35 an hour (I had a Seiko). Now, almost 40 years later the watch is worth over 10 times what it cost new because they are very well built, the design has stood the test of time and there are not a great many of them. It also keeps great time, the ETA 2776 runs at +3 seconds per day. It was last serviced in 2011.

 
#12 ·
I think the most important thing with the resurgence in vintage Tudor pricing is that they look damn good! The snowflake, IMO, is nicer than any vintage Rolex I've seen.

Anyways, watches are also very much an in-trend thing as well. Plenty of hipsters in the watch community, as far as watch standards are concerned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Quartersawn
#13 ·
Tudor makes some of my favourite designs hands down. I love the Pelagos, and the black bay would probably be warring with the Aqua Terra for my most coveted watch, were it not for the lack of date window. The models shown recently at Basel just reinforced this, as I loved each one.

I'm just trying to understand how they fit in to the price scale, and why they command the price they do, especially the black bay. I know Tudor was started by Rolex as an entry level brand of sorts, though it has long been its own company with its own distinct style. But exactly how is this the case? Originally, I was under the impression that the body, case, hands and bracelet were basically built to Rolex standards in terms of fit, finish, and tolerances, but the cost difference was due to the use of (for lack of a better way to put this) mass market ETA movements instead of Rolex calibers.However now Tudor is using its own impressively specced in house movements, and yet the price is still miles below Rolex.

If this is the case, I must assume that they don't manufacture to Rolex standards (not a criticism, most companies don't). If this is the case, then as beautiful as they are, how do the older models cost as much as they do? They compare to omega pricing and likely build , but use stock, unmodified ETA movements, mostly without chronometer certification . With this in mind, why wouldn't they be closer to, say, an eterna kon tiki, or higher end Hamilton? The prices seem to be just pulled out of thin air...

I'd love to hear if anyone has some insight here.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
First, (in red) are you asking about the price vintage Tudors sold for new or what they sell for now? If it is what the vintage ones bring now it is because they are considered collectible now.

I consider current Tudors excellent bang for the buck in the lower middle of the mid-tier watches (Rolex is at the upper end of mid-tier). The difference is price between Tudor and Rolex is two fold, first they are not built to the same standard but you are seeing a lot of diminishing returns in the big price jump and second the name recognition does not allow them to charge on the same scale as Rolex, while they wouldn't do it lets consider if Rolex put their name on the Pelagos and put a 3135 movement in it the "Rolex" price would be probably around $6k even with no higher fit or finish, if they moved it up to Rolex standard the actual fit and finish would only move up a visually small amount but would move the price of the watch to the 9K range.
 
  • Like
Reactions: choppit
#14 ·
As has been previously stated, Tudor is a brand/market segment extension for Rolex. They are not there to compete with Rolex, but to complement. Tudor watches have excellent value only when compared with other like pieces. For example, compare a Pelagos with a Ti Planet Ocean or a Ti Panerai. One may quibble about aesthetics or variation with fit/finish and movements, but at the end of the day the Pelagos will be $1000 or more less than a similar spec'ed model from Omega or Panerai.

Savvy marketing by the House of Rolex, but many other manufacturers do the same thing.
 
#16 ·
I'm talking the modern ETA black bay when I say older models, and in house black bay when I say newer

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The small price difference between the 1st and 2nd gen BB is a result of a couple of things.

1. the ETA used by Tudor had gone up in price significantly as Swatch fought COMCO (the Swiss Competition Commission) to reduce and ultimately eliminate sales of ETA outside the group so you had a supply/demand issue the raised the price on the base movement that Tudor then did fairly significant modifications to so in the end it became a pretty expensive movement in the price range

2. You also see the power of Rolex highly vertically integrated production along with their in-house design skill in simple 3 hand movements. So because of their capabilities they were able to produce a very high quality in-house movement for not a lot more money. Given the option along with the Tudor ETA tradition they probably would have been very happy if Swatch had continued to sell ETA to third parties, had ETA never slowed outside sales Tudor would have been able to sell the BB et al at an even lower price point than they did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pinkybrain
#17 · (Edited)
2011 $'s spent on ads. Don't think this includes sporting event sponsorship. And this is just on the U.S. Market.

TOP WATCH ADVERTISERS
U.S. market, 2011
RANK BRAND AMOUNT ($million)
1. Rolex 61.48
2. Breitling 43.85
3. Cartier 24.58
4. Omega 22.96
5. TAG Heuer 22.00
6. Citizen 20.72
7. Movado 19.83
8. Chanel 17.87
9. Longines 16.02
10. Seiko 11.15
11. Breguet 9.58
12. Tudor 8.24
13. Patek Philippe 7.66
14. Hublot 7.59
15. Audemars Piguet 7.39
16. Bell & Ross 7.11
17. Dior 6.05
-. Swatch 6.05
19. Montblanc 5.64
20. Ball Watch 5.37

I can't even imagine what Rolex pays to sponsor Formula 1.

Just found this,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrystanpaul/2013/03/25/formula-1-season-off-to-a-flying-start-with-emirates-and-rolex/#4056449063bb
Forbes reports that Rolex spent slightly less than $40 million for the 2013 F1 season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: alex79 and avusblue
#20 ·
I can't even imagine what Rolex pays to sponsor Formula 1.

Just found this,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrystanpaul/2013/03/25/formula-1-season-off-to-a-flying-start-with-emirates-and-rolex/#4056449063bb
Forbes reports that Rolex spent slightly less than $40 million for the 2013 F1 season.
The number I heard at the beginning of the 5 year contract was $32 million per. One time last year I timed how long Rolex was visible on the screen during the race itself, from the beginning of the formation lap until the first finisher. Rolex was visible somewhere on the screen over 90% of the entire race. I can't say it is typical since I only did it once but it is basically constantly there. Worldwide the average race audience is over 400 million viewers and probably captures much more of the affluent demographic than the majority of sports.

So this year has 21 GPs roughly 2 hours long (shorter but close enough for rough figures) and 400 million viewers so that's a potential 16.8 TRILLION hours of Rolex in front of human eyes. Lets say they average person is just looking at the screen 1/2 the time and my 90% rate is average then that is still 5 trillion hours of Rolex. Add to that the practice session and qualification and all the pre and post race shows, press coverage, blogs etc and that money is looking pretty well spent.

Given I watch every F1 show along with every session of every race it is quit possible I see Rolex coronets on green backgrounds more than any other advertisement over the course of a year.
 
#18 ·
When looking to other brands using ETA calibres it's also important to consider.
Which grade ETA?
Is it being further modified?
Tudor use the top grade and then modify not for the sake of claiming mods but to actually improve further. Many other manufacturers simply put a bottom grade ETA movement in and there you go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#22 ·
When looking to other brands using ETA calibres it's also important to consider.
Which grade ETA?
Is it being further modified?
Tudor use the top grade and then modify not for the sake of claiming mods but to actually improve further. Many other manufacturers simply put a bottom grade ETA movement in and there you go.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What modifications do Tudor make to their ETA movements to improve them?
 
#21 ·
so...yeah, veblen goods: the very definition of "law of diminishing returns".
While I think I get your point, those two terms mean very different things -- neither defines the other. A Rolex can be a Veblen good because its high price makes it a desirable sign of wealth or prestige, and a Rolex can exhibit diminishing returns because fine calibration and fitment becomes increasingly expensive to manufacture for less noticeable benefits. But, those are not overlapping ideas. If anything, the "law of diminishing returns" implies that Rolexes are not strictly a Veblen good, because you are in fact getting something tangible (if increasingly small) for the extra money.

(U-Boat watches, for example, are a legitimate Veblen good, because there's literally nothing about their manufacture correlated with their high prices.)
 
#24 · (Edited)
I'm just trying to understand how they fit in to the price scale, and why they command the price they do, especially the black bay. I know Tudor was started by Rolex as an entry level brand of sorts,
Incorrect read Tudors history on their website.

though it has long been its own company with its own distinct style. But exactly how is this the case?
Read Tudors history on their website.

Originally, I was under the impression that the body, case, hands and bracelet were basically built to Rolex standards in terms of fit, finish, and tolerances, but the cost difference was due to the use of (for lack of a better way to put this) mass market ETA movements instead of Rolex calibers.
Incorrect read Tudors history on their website

However now Tudor is using its own impressively specced in house movements, and yet the price is still miles below Rolex.

If this is the case, I must assume that they don't manufacture to Rolex standards (not a criticism, most companies don't).
Incorrect read Tudors history on their website and Then read Rolex history on their website specifically about the superlative movement certification and COSC

.......but use stock, unmodified ETA movements, mostly without chronometer certification . With this in mind, why wouldn't they be closer to, say, an eterna kon tiki, or higher end Hamilton? The prices seem to be just pulled out of thin air...
Incorrect as the last comment.

There is a lot of misleading statements about Tudors watches and Tudors movements on this forum. By reading up from the Rolex and Tudors sites you will be well informed and they have answered all your question already.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
 
#25 ·
Originally, I was under the impression that the body, case, hands and bracelet were basically built to Rolex standards in terms of fit, finish, and tolerances, but the cost difference was due to the use of (for lack of a better way to put this) mass market ETA movements instead of Rolex calibers.However now Tudor is using its own impressively specced in house movements, and yet the price is still miles below Rolex.

If this is the case, I must assume that they don't manufacture to Rolex standards (not a criticism, most companies don't).
The mistake is in thinking that luxury wrist products are priced using commodity cost-plus methods. The cost of the product does not bear an exact relation to the cost of manufacture.

Tudor exists because there was a market for them in 1946 and there is a market today. the brand is also hot now they've gone in this new (old?) design direction since 2010.
 
#27 · (Edited)
Interesting choice of words.
That "dash" of changes makes the watch better.

That is why it costs more.
The question is whether you consider the improvements worth what they ask for it.

Your initial observations are also wrong.
Like for like, Tudor are cheaper than Omega, so the same question can be posed there: why are Omega more expensive than Tudor and much more expensive than Hamilton?
 
#29 ·
Yes and no. Tudor barely changed the stock ETA, and before this year most don't seem to have chronometer certification .
Omega puts in a bunch of it's own components (such as silicon balance), some significant changes to the ETA, does some decoration of the movement, and has the co-axial escapement in most of their watches. In addition, most of their automatics have chronometer certification which most (if not all) Hamilton's lack.
I'm not saying these things are worth the price difference from Hamilton, but they do form a basis for their justification.
 
#30 ·
I always liked Tudor before they went independent because of what I saw was a greater freedom to innovate than Rolex had with its iconic design, yet what appeared to be the same quality, or close to it. After they struck out on their own I just had to have the Pelagos the minute I saw it. I have not been disappointed and I too am hoping for a date window on the Black Bay some day. I wish I had not sold my Tudor Sub so cheap, but the clasp kept opening when I went water skiing with it.
 
#33 ·
FYI
Your list if changes is the same thing repeating.

The changes done to make a 2500 is the fitting of a co-axial escapement.
Changes, Putting in own components, Has the co-axial are all the same thing.
The 2500 doesn't have a silicon balance the last time i checked.

Are you going to ignore the other parts of the watch?
Case, dial, bracelet and clasp?

This is what makes the Seamaster Professional different to the Black Bay.
Ceramic bezel insert and the co-axial escapement which has pretty much the same number of parts but arranged differently and a $100 COSC test.
And for that, you have to pay 25-30% more.

Ot the other hand, the Tudor has Rolex levels of consistent case fit and a better clasp.
For the price of a regular steel Seamaster Professional, you can get a titanium Pelagos.
 
#39 ·
Good summary. You can keep talking about it, but it is what it is. The Omega has a more expensive movement and bezel, and the Tudor Black Bay is slightly better machined, and also a good bit cheaper. As an ownership proposition, nothing wrong with the Omega at all, but I'd also take a Pelagos over it in an instant!
 
#35 ·
This discussion is fast approaching the abstruse level of how many angels dance on the head of a pin.

I have two Tudors with ETA movements. I enjoy them and see no need to complicate matters. For various reasons I don't like or appreciate Rolexes or Omegas so the Tudors will be my "expensive" watches in my collection. But I respect those who value Rolexes and Omegas differently.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top