Tudor will NEVER EVER make better watches than Rolex for the SAME PRICE ! - Page 11
Like Tree262Likes

Thread: Tudor will NEVER EVER make better watches than Rolex for the SAME PRICE !

Page 11 of 30 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 291
  1. #101
    Member RacingGreen II's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    239

    Re: Tudor will NEVER EVER make better watches than Rolex for the SAME PRICE !

    Quote Originally Posted by mav View Post
    Yes, but I've already stated objective reasons why Rolex SubC ND is better than the Tudor BB58.
    And I’ve responded. Once more, with bullet points

    - accuracy: they can claim what they like. Data on here reflects better performance delivered by Tudor movements (my own matches the stats). That may change as new movements incorporated into Rolex Models, but Rolex does not win this one today. And it’s the only criteria of those you give that fully applies to utility as a watch.

    - steel; that’s not an objective benefit until you explain how. As I previously noted, stainless steel watches from all brands have lasted decades. I do not know what the performance benefits of 904 are in practice. If it’s shinier then that’s a tick in the jewellery box and as I said from the get go, Rolex wins as jewellery.

    - clasp - yup, I’ll give you that, but it doesn’t apply when a Tudor has something comparable, ie pelagos. Nor is it really intrinsic, given - as noted - either watch would still be the same watch on a band. However, for avoidance of doubt, the sub has a better clasp than a BB.

    In summary, Tudor wins on core watch functionality, Rolex and Tudor tie on supporting functionality with Rolex winning when compared to Tudor models which don’t have it, Rolex wins on jewellery.

    This doesn’t add up to ‘Rolex is an objectively better watch’.
    Last edited by RacingGreen II; 3 Weeks Ago at 19:43.
    Michael Day likes this.

  2. #102
    Member sticky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    South Yorkshire
    Posts
    49,849

    Re: Tudor will NEVER EVER make better watches than Rolex for the SAME PRICE !

    Rolex are good (very good actually) but they’re not perfect and so Tudor wouldn’t have to up their game much at all to match them.

  3. #103
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    916

    Re: Tudor will NEVER EVER make better watches than Rolex for the SAME PRICE !

    Actually is all about business strategy. I think you all think too much. :)

    Rolex is running a profitable business. They know their watch is expensive and not many people fan afford. So instead of pushing away the customer, they created a cheaper subbrand and grab the sales from the not so wealthy customers.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    WatchUSeek.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #104
    Member RacingGreen II's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    239

    Re: Tudor will NEVER EVER make better watches than Rolex for the SAME PRICE !

    Quote Originally Posted by mui.richard View Post
    Yes I know about Purple Hayes' thread. So your point is? The movement dictates what I buy?

    I simply wanted to point out a simple fact, Rolex and Tudor BOTH have their merits. There's no "win or lose" here, not in my book at least.

    My own experience vs "Purple's findings"? My MT5612 equipped Black Bay S&G has been losing more and more time, from running dead on since purchased, to losing 6 spd now, but it's still very consistent day to day so I think all it needs is a simple regulation. Just dropped it off at RSC last week for just that.

    And my 2015 214270 Explorer is no better. From running dead on and now it's losing 6spd. It's gonna go into RSC when I pick up the Black Bay.

    Btw, you're probably preaching to the choir here...I do own numerous Rolex and Tudor pieces, from vintage to the most current...in fact I like Tudor so much I actually placed an order for the just announced P01. It's a "dare to be different" watch and I admire that.

    May I ask how many you've actually owned long term? Past or present?
    I am making no larger point than countering with logic, the overreach and abstract claims made by some Rolex afficiandos on the thread.

    - Movement performance is an objective criterion, and I cite empirical measurements in response to those claiming a) ‘betterness’ based on subective criteria and b) claims on performance based on marketing lines. I said from the outset that a cheap quartz outperforms both - I’m countering hot air, not citing this on any other basis; personally I don’t care, they both do their job.

    - I agree with you on both having merits. Of all the posters you could have targeted this response at, I seem an unlikely candidate , even if say so myself! My argument from the start has been that this is subjective and boils down to what we each like, which is fine and good. But if I encounter objectivity being misused, I’m going to respond.

    - my Tudor is only months old and varied between +/- zero and -1 until I got bored checking. I doubt that long term it will match my omega coax which has done -1 or less for seven years now without service. I think omega movements are ‘better’ than anything from the Wilsdorf stable.

    - having said all that, I’m clearing out all my omegas bar a speedy with objectively the worst movement. Because, as I suspect is the case for most of us, aesthetic appeal is more important to me by miles and miles and I’ve become disenchanted with the girth of contemporary Omegas. Likewise I do not own a Rolex and have no interest in owning a Rolex unless and until they revert to more classical stylings.

    - Good for you with the PO1, its absolutely not for me, but I admire your willingness to stray from herd opinion.

    In short:

    - my view remains that this kind of thing is a bit daft; watch choice is about what is good for the owner. But claims to universal truth based on claims framed as objective facts, when they are not, invites a response as an end in itself.

    - in objectively quantifiable terms Rolex may win out as a purveyor of jewellery, as again I have acknowledged from the start. But I haven’t seen anyone stand up a rationale for it making a better watch.
    Michael Day likes this.

  6. #105
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    7
    The original premise is so so flawed. They aren’t the same price, so what are we talking about?
    Simon and Michael Day like this.

  7. #106
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    67

    Re: Tudor will NEVER EVER make better watches than Rolex for the SAME PRICE !

    This thread is a stark reminder to me why I haven’t visited the Rolex/Tudor forum for months.

  8. #107
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    1,600

    Re: Tudor will NEVER EVER make better watches than Rolex for the SAME PRICE !

    Quote Originally Posted by Snaggletooth View Post

    Rolex started using 904L steel in 1985 because it polishes well and is more resistant to scratches in comparison to 316L. It also resists corrosion due to possible salt water or acid buildup that may get trapped in the watch case for years between cleanings.

    904L stainless steel has a different chemical composition than 316L. It has a lower amount of carbon and a higher concentration of nickel and chromium, with copper added to make it less corrosive and more resistant to stress cracking.

    It has been reported in forums that higher nickel content in 904L steel can lead to rashes in people with allergies to the metal, however, this is disputed as 316L stainless steel would create a similar allergic reaction, thus making the point moot in comparing the use of 316L over 904L in the wristwatch industry.

    Though the average person wearing a Rolex may not be battling the elements on a daily basis, the quality of sheen and higher tolerance for scratching may be a good enough reason to choose a watch made with 904L grade stainless steel over a model using 316L.
    https://robsrolexchronicle.blogspot....y-used-by.html
    The science does not support their claim. ASTM A240, which lays out the properties of 904L and 316L, gives the hardness (Rockwell) of 904L as 90 and 316L as 95.

    I'm not sure who would consider 904 a "superalloy", as it's not very strong, even by stainless steel standards, and isn't super temperature resistant. A286, Inconel, K-monel, or Rene 41 would be considered "superalloys".
    skuzapo likes this.
    Powered by 1.21 Gigawatts

  9. #108
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    276

    Re: Tudor will NEVER EVER make better watches than Rolex for the SAME PRICE !

    Quote Originally Posted by TimelyBehaviour View Post

    Ask anyone that isn’t a WIS who is Tudor? Blank faces. Who is rolex? Eyes widen and they can tell you someone that has one.
    This is exactly why.... the idea of owning a Rolex turns me off.
    Bugster and TorontoJeff like this.

  10. #109
    mav
    mav is online now
    Member mav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    2,926

    Re: Tudor will NEVER EVER make better watches than Rolex for the SAME PRICE !

    Quote Originally Posted by RacingGreen II View Post
    And I’ve responded. Once more, with bullet points

    - accuracy: they can claim what they like. Data on here reflects better performance delivered by Tudor movements (my own matches the stats). That may change as new movements incorporated into Rolex Models, but Rolex does not win this one today. And it’s the only criteria of those you give that fully applies to utility as a watch.

    - steel; that’s not an objective benefit until you explain how. As I previously noted, stainless steel watches from all brands have lasted decades. I do not know what the performance benefits of 904 are in practice. If it’s shinier then that’s a tick in the jewellery box and as I said from the get go, Rolex wins as jewellery.

    - clasp - yup, I’ll give you that, but it doesn’t apply when a Tudor has something comparable, ie pelagos. Nor is it really intrinsic, given - as noted - either watch would still be the same watch on a band. However, for avoidance of doubt, the sub has a better clasp than a BB.

    In summary, Tudor wins on core watch functionality, Rolex and Tudor tie on supporting functionality with Rolex winning when compared to Tudor models which don’t have it, Rolex wins on jewellery.

    This doesn’t add up to ‘Rolex is an objectively better watch’.
    HAHA OK, but again you're spinning objective facts and specs to support your own narrative and trying to justify.
    ♛ Rolex | Ω Omega | IWC | Zenith | Tudor | Seiko
    @aguynamedtommy

  11. #110
    Member TJ Boogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Seattle-LA-NY
    Posts
    2,833

    Re: Tudor will NEVER EVER make better watches than Rolex for the SAME PRICE !

    904l is softer than 316l. Don't polish it too much, particularly by non-RSC-certified, 'polishers'. You risk warping the case and losing sharp edges. It's a very popular and wrong misconception that 904l is harder than 316l.

    http://www.atlassteels.com.au/docume...tion+Chart.pdf
    Best Regards,

    --Todd

Page 11 of 30 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

    Similar Threads

    1. Is there a better option than this for the price?
      By exbob in forum Public Forum
      Replies: 21
      Last Post: October 20th, 2016, 18:32
    2. Replies: 24
      Last Post: September 5th, 2016, 21:40
    3. Challenge: Find a better watch than this for $157.
      By houndoggie in forum Affordable watches
      Replies: 28
      Last Post: August 23rd, 2009, 05:03
    4. What's the best watch with lumes for the best price?
      By G-Shocks Are Cool. in forum Public Forum
      Replies: 13
      Last Post: July 12th, 2007, 01:41
    5. Replies: 4
      Last Post: May 7th, 2007, 20:49

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •