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