User Panel
Posted: 9/14/2018 10:15:39 AM EDT
If these first few come through - I'm spending money
Attached File Attached File Also hot Attached File |
|
All I want is their Ranger dial in their standard sub.
That’s it. Why can’t they do that for me. |
|
That blue gmt looks awesome. But I want a 58 sized black bay dark with the pvd coating.
|
|
The all green one is nice looking. I would consider dumping my black bay for that one.
|
|
Is there any other info on that Batman GMT? What size and what movement? I would give up a few of my collection for that.
|
|
Not sure of where these came from other than I saw them on the net.
|
|
|
Quoted:
The one looks like the Black Bay Tudor makes for Harrod's. I'd buy a 58 version. https://www.revolution.watch/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/04-Tudor-Black-Bay-for-Harrods-Special-Edition-1.jpg View Quote |
|
Meh. Saw these on TRF. Not a huge fan of any of them still.
Needs a DATE complication! |
|
|
Quoted:
heathen. I wish they would drop the rivet bracelet and just do a modified oyster. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
Wonderful looking watches. I'd buy one but I just can't get over the hour hand shape.
|
|
I've been seriously Jonesin' over the 50th Rolex Sub with the black dial & green bezel ('Kermit'), but can't bring myself to spend 13k on a decent condition one (or 18+k on a pristine first run). I'd pull the trigger on the Tudor equivalent if they did it.
|
|
Quoted:
They already make it. "Harrods" edition. http://cdn.luxuo.com/2017/12/Tudor-Black-Bay-Green-A-Harrods-Special-Edition-2.jpg View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I've been seriously Jonesin' over the 50th Rolex Sub with the black dial & green bezel ('Kermit'), but can't bring myself to spend 13k on a decent condition one (or 18+k on a pristine first run). I'd pull the trigger on the Tudor equivalent if they did it. http://cdn.luxuo.com/2017/12/Tudor-Black-Bay-Green-A-Harrods-Special-Edition-2.jpg |
|
Quoted:
I've been seriously Jonesin' over the 50th Rolex Sub with the black dial & green bezel ('Kermit'), but can't bring myself to spend 13k on a decent condition one (or 18+k on a pristine first run). I'd pull the trigger on the Tudor equivalent if they did it. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Are they truly an "equivalent"? Serious question. View Quote YMMV how you feel about that. |
|
Quoted:
Tudor is Rolex sister company. Similar QC and standards and same people at the top of the building pulling the strings. Some say Rolex is positioning Tudor to be the 'Rolex of old' and put out some of their more mainstream ideas through Tudor. They have a long history together. YMMV how you feel about that. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Are they truly an "equivalent"? Serious question. YMMV how you feel about that. I see it as the difference between M Series BMW’s and Standard 3/5 series BMW’s. |
|
Quoted:
This. I see it as the difference between M Series BMW's and Standard 3/5 series BMW's. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Are they truly an "equivalent"? Serious question. YMMV how you feel about that. I see it as the difference between M Series BMW's and Standard 3/5 series BMW's. |
|
Quoted:
Yeah, thats sort of my point. I knew Tudor was owned my Rolex. Your M series versus standard 3/5/6 or AMG versus regular Mercedes, I think, is well put. They may be the same company but the M and AMG get special attention and are pretty universally considered superior, hence the premium price. Not making a judgement on whether they are actually worth the premium price, simply saying they arent really "equivelant". View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Are they truly an "equivalent"? Serious question. YMMV how you feel about that. I see it as the difference between M Series BMW's and Standard 3/5 series BMW's. They (Rolex, SA) were genius with how they reintroduced Tudor to the marketplace with the Black Bay's as opposed to their lackluster and ever changing models of the 2000's (much like Omega). It is my opinion and that of many others that Tudor is now the new "sport" wing of Rolex. Most of the new Rolex advertising focuses on luxury as opposed to "watches for the demanding professional _______" that made the brand what it is today. That role is now passed on to Tudor. The last true Rolex sports watch died in 2012 with the introduction of the 114060 (Submariner) and the retirement of the 14060M (Submariner). This is where the Black Bay 58 comes in - it is more of a "Sub" than today's Rolex Submariners if you think about it. It is a sub $4k sports diver that is in essence built to be a high end tool watch, this is the pedigree on which the Rolex brand was built. It also shows Rolex's desire to move up to the luxury segment that AP and PP have dominated for years. I sum it up this way, Rolex owners who I know that own 4/5 series models refer to them as their model name, i.e. Submariner, GMT Master, Explorer, etc... Those who I know that have newer models refer to them as my "Rollie". Nothing wrong with the new models however, you can't deny the design and marketing philosophy behind them. There is a reason the older 5 series models have skyrocketed in price and demand is through the roof for them, hell they cost as much as new ones if not more! Where am I going with this? Rolex knows this and this is why Rolex is being so aggressive with the Tudor brand. They are cranking out models that have that classic theme, pricing, and appeal. Here lies the genius - Rolex didn't make a dime on the pre-owned or vintage market......with the Tudor lineup - they do now. Would the prospective watch buyer buy a preowned Sub for $12k with patina and the vintage appeal, while knowing cost of ownership could be pricey over time or buy the new Tudor model which checks the boxes (for most folks) for under $4k? From a technical standpoint the new Tudor movements such as the MT5402 or MT5652 are better movements than those found in comparative Rolex models. What you are paying for with Rolex is the 904l vs 316l steel used, refined materials in the hands and dial, and the crown on the dial. All that said, I went with the Rolex (14060m) as the classic no date model was what I've wanted for years. I should of snagged one when they were $3500 used not the $6800 used which the market commands today. So it comes down to is the Rolex better than the Tudor? That will be an endless debate, no different that 9mm vs .45 but in the end both are outstanding brands with great models. I passed on a BB58 last week at my AD as it would duplicate my sub, they were that close to be honest. If I didn't have the sub and was getting into the market I'd probably get the BB58, if they drop either green model posted earlier in this thread I'm a buyer whereas I think the "Hulk" models are meh and too damn flashy. |
|
Quoted: So from a brand standpoint you can look at it this way - Tudor is able to release exciting models that have a blend of modern/classic DNA in them and get away with it as the exciting sibling of Rolex. At the same time Rolex is very conservative on changes to their lineup, thus the classic success of their offerings over the years. When the maxi case sports watches came out they pushed further into the jewelry spectrum as a move to gain more presence on the wrist as well as in the marketplace. Gone are the days of the professional / sports watch - while ushering in the "ultimate in luxury sports watches". They (Rolex, SA) were genius with how they reintroduced Tudor to the marketplace with the Black Bay's as opposed to their lackluster and ever changing models of the 2000's (much like Omega). It is my opinion and that of many others that Tudor is now the new "sport" wing of Rolex. Most of the new Rolex advertising focuses on luxury as opposed to "watches for the demanding professional _______" that made the brand what it is today. That role is now passed on to Tudor. The last true Rolex sports watch died in 2012 with the introduction of the 114060 (Submariner) and the retirement of the 14060M (Submariner). This is where the Black Bay 58 comes in - it is more of a "Sub" than today's Rolex Submariners if you think about it. It is a sub $4k sports diver that is in essence built to be a high end tool watch, this is the pedigree on which the Rolex brand was built. It also shows Rolex's desire to move up to the luxury segment that AP and PP have dominated for years. I sum it up this way, Rolex owners who I know that own 4/5 series models refer to them as their model name, i.e. Submariner, GMT Master, Explorer, etc... Those who I know that have newer models refer to them as my "Rollie". Nothing wrong with the new models however, you can't deny the design and marketing philosophy behind them. There is a reason the older 5 series models have skyrocketed in price and demand is through the roof for them, hell they cost as much as new ones if not more! Where am I going with this? Rolex knows this and this is why Rolex is being so aggressive with the Tudor brand. They are cranking out models that have that classic theme, pricing, and appeal. Here lies the genius - Rolex didn't make a dime on the pre-owned or vintage market......with the Tudor lineup - they do now. Would the prospective watch buyer buy a preowned Sub for $12k with patina and the vintage appeal, while knowing cost of ownership could be pricey over time or buy the new Tudor model which checks the boxes (for most folks) for under $4k? From a technical standpoint the new Tudor movements such as the MT5402 or MT5652 are better movements than those found in comparative Rolex models. What you are paying for with Rolex is the 904l vs 316l steel used, refined materials in the hands and dial, and the crown on the dial. All that said, I went with the Rolex (14060m) as the classic no date model was what I've wanted for years. I should of snagged one when they were $3500 used not the $6800 used which the market commands today. So it comes down to is the Rolex better than the Tudor? That will be an endless debate, no different that 9mm vs .45 but in the end both are outstanding brands with great models. I passed on a BB58 last week at my AD as it would duplicate my sub, they were that close to be honest. If I didn't have the sub and was getting into the market I'd probably get the BB58, if they drop either green model posted earlier in this thread I'm a buyer whereas I think the "Hulk" models are meh and too damn flashy. View Quote |
|
|
I’ve always wanted a new submariner date. Now I keep seeing Tudor watches pop up etc. I’m afraid I will never be happy unless I buy the real deal.
It’s like in 1911’s. If I wanted a Nighthawk custom but settled on a dan Wesson to save money, would I be happy? I know not sister companies. I was referring to msrp. Both great guns with good build sheets etc but one is more than twice the price. Still saving so I have a while to think about it lol. |
|
Quoted:
I’ve always wanted a new submariner date. Now I keep seeing Tudor watches pop up etc. I’m afraid I will never be happy unless I buy the real deal. It’s like in 1911’s. If I wanted a Nighthawk custom but settled on a dan Wesson to save money, would I be happy? I know not sister companies. I was referring to msrp. Both great guns with good build sheets etc but one is more than twice the price. Still saving so I have a while to think about it lol. View Quote You are correct. Don’t settle - get the sub and then a Tudor |
|
|
The black bay 58 really caught my eye. But after edumacating myself a bit I will probably go with a pre-owned 14060M (Submariner) with a 3130 movement. Kind of the best of both worlds and a classic. It's not a reason to own a watch but the idea that I could always sell it for about what I paid for it is part of it. I hate depreciating assets. Everything indicates the 58 might be a new classic and it is insanely popular. But if I am buying a lifetime item I am leaning toward a classic. The 14060M (Submariner) will always be what it is, as well as a great watch.
|
|
Quoted:
The black bay 58 really caught my eye. But after edumacating myself a bit I will probably go with a pre-owned 14060M (Submariner) with a 3130 movement. Kind of the best of both worlds and a classic. It's not a reason to own a watch but the idea that I could always sell it for about what I paid for it is part of it. I hate depreciating assets. Everything indicates the 58 might be a new classic and it is insanely popular. But if I am buying a lifetime item I am leaning toward a classic. The 14060M (Submariner) will always be what it is, as well as a great watch. View Quote It’s why I passed on the first one available at my AD, when would it get wrist time over this: Attached File If Tudor drops a green bezel model at Basel, I’m a buyer though. |
|
|
Quoted: So from a brand standpoint you can look at it this way - Tudor is able to release exciting models that have a blend of modern/classic DNA in them and get away with it as the exciting sibling of Rolex. At the same time Rolex is very conservative on changes to their lineup, thus the classic success of their offerings over the years. When the maxi case sports watches came out they pushed further into the jewelry spectrum as a move to gain more presence on the wrist as well as in the marketplace. Gone are the days of the professional / sports watch - while ushering in the "ultimate in luxury sports watches". They (Rolex, SA) were genius with how they reintroduced Tudor to the marketplace with the Black Bay's as opposed to their lackluster and ever changing models of the 2000's (much like Omega). It is my opinion and that of many others that Tudor is now the new "sport" wing of Rolex. Most of the new Rolex advertising focuses on luxury as opposed to "watches for the demanding professional _______" that made the brand what it is today. That role is now passed on to Tudor. The last true Rolex sports watch died in 2012 with the introduction of the 114060 (Submariner) and the retirement of the 14060M (Submariner). This is where the Black Bay 58 comes in - it is more of a "Sub" than today's Rolex Submariners if you think about it. It is a sub $4k sports diver that is in essence built to be a high end tool watch, this is the pedigree on which the Rolex brand was built. It also shows Rolex's desire to move up to the luxury segment that AP and PP have dominated for years. I sum it up this way, Rolex owners who I know that own 4/5 series models refer to them as their model name, i.e. Submariner, GMT Master, Explorer, etc... Those who I know that have newer models refer to them as my "Rollie". Nothing wrong with the new models however, you can't deny the design and marketing philosophy behind them. There is a reason the older 5 series models have skyrocketed in price and demand is through the roof for them, hell they cost as much as new ones if not more! Where am I going with this? Rolex knows this and this is why Rolex is being so aggressive with the Tudor brand. They are cranking out models that have that classic theme, pricing, and appeal. Here lies the genius - Rolex didn't make a dime on the pre-owned or vintage market......with the Tudor lineup - they do now. Would the prospective watch buyer buy a preowned Sub for $12k with patina and the vintage appeal, while knowing cost of ownership could be pricey over time or buy the new Tudor model which checks the boxes (for most folks) for under $4k? From a technical standpoint the new Tudor movements such as the MT5402 or MT5652 are better movements than those found in comparative Rolex models. What you are paying for with Rolex is the 904l vs 316l steel used, refined materials in the hands and dial, and the crown on the dial. All that said, I went with the Rolex (14060m) as the classic no date model was what I've wanted for years. I should of snagged one when they were $3500 used not the $6800 used which the market commands today. So it comes down to is the Rolex better than the Tudor? That will be an endless debate, no different that 9mm vs .45 but in the end both are outstanding brands with great models. I passed on a BB58 last week at my AD as it would duplicate my sub, they were that close to be honest. If I didn't have the sub and was getting into the market I'd probably get the BB58, if they drop either green model posted earlier in this thread I'm a buyer whereas I think the "Hulk" models are meh and too damn flashy. View Quote And to answer the question "is Rolex 'better' than Tudor?" I say this: What's "better" actually mean? Once Tudor went to an in-house, COSC certified, 70 hour power reserve movement, Tudor became everything Rolex used to be at a fraction of the cost. Rolex is a status symbol, not a tool watch. They've totally lost their connection with their tool watch roots. There's not a Rolex I'd rather have instead of the comparable Tudor model, especially those with the in house movements. |
|
|
Quoted:
I just bought a BB blue and i love the snowflake hands! It's classic Tudor. Nothing else like it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Wonderful looking watches. I'd buy one but I just can't get over the hour hand shape. Love them can’t personally pull the blue off. |
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.