They say: Tudor is the poor man’s Rolex.

I wouldn’t agree they’re expensive and have their own unique brand story

If we put poor in strong quotation marks (because spending $3k on a watch is still insane to 99% of people) then it’s true depending on the intention of the buyer more than the brand itself. If you want a black bay and get a black bay, then no. If you want a submariner and get a black bay, then yeah.

@PoorMansRolex what do you think? 😂

I think that modern Tudor have a big enough catalogue to stand up as their own brand and have license to be more creative with their releases.

If you want a Rolex but can’t afford one, and end up buying a Tudor - yes. If not - no.

I know several people that own both the submariner and P39. Usually those that make that statement can’t afford Tudor nor Rolex. I personally owned the Submariner 16610. Sold it. Own two Tudors, a BB54 and P39. Own a Rolex Datejust. I don’t get it 🤔 🤷‍♂️

The labels strikes close to home for those offended by it.

I thought we settled this “once and for all” just before Christmas?

It is before Christmas again now! 😛

I think it’s the non jewelry version of Rolex for people that still have good jobs (upper middle class). Also there are many people that own a Tudor and a Rolex haha so I don’t really see the “poor” argument being legit.

I'm just as poor as you. Hahaha

Definitely not a poor man’s Rolex. I’ve owned Rolexs, Tag, Patek, Pan, Omega, Micro brands and many others and I can wear pretty much anything But guess what I wear the most and have more of? Tudor!!

Poor by who’s standards 😂

so what's a poor man's tudor?

I own 6 Rolex models, among them the most desirable steel sports models of the last decade. Yet, my tudors (this year, the black fxd and the burgundy black bay ok jubilee) have gotten far more wrist time than my hulk, Pepsi etc combined. Likewise, my Tudor rootbeer gets more wrist time on my better half than any other watches from my collection or her own. If that makes us poor men / women, then so be it. But I find both products complimentary and more playful, whilst also being more under the radar (very useful for travelling to certain regions) rather than an Ersatz product of sorts.

Meanwhile, is my chronoswiss regulateur (24 hour dial) a poor man’s breguet?

I enjoy wearing my BB when I’m driving my Porsche Boxster, which of course is the poor man’s Porsche. I am a happy poor man.

I generally agree but money is a factor from a value perspective. Sure the Rolexes might be a bit nicer but not 2-3x nicer.

Ell the brand actually started with that intention but now at days Tudor may be under Rolex umbrella, but definitely have their own personality

I fully agree with you. Objectively, they're not THAT much better from a technical standpoint. But I guess if you remove the cost aspect and compare the two, the Rolex ultimately are still better than Tudor. And therefore, you'd only go for the Tudor over a Rolex if you couldn't afford the Rolex... (OR you were sized out of Rolex).

The above is a massive generalisation (example: I personally do not like how shiny and bling modern Rolex are so likely wouldn't save up to buy one). BUT if I could buy GMT Master IIs and Subs all day long, I don't think I'd spend much time in the Tudor store.

I think Tudor is the poor man’s Omega. 😂

Timex is a poor man's Tudor 😉

I own both the blue and black 42 Pelagos and the b bay chronograph I love all three and I am a poor after buying them. Lol.

It's my favorite watch so not overly bothered in others opinions. I do find it a strange comparison though, as surely the BB58 is closer to a Rolex Sub, in looks, materials and technically 🤷🏾‍♂️

I recently read a comment by a fellow WatchCruncher saying "a Rolex is the Tudor for men with more money than brains".

Jokes aside, I think Tudor and Rolex are two different animals here and is better not to compare them due to different target markets and product offerings.

Every time I see a remark about Tudor being a poor man’s Rolex brings me back to a comment from the Swiss gent who represented AP as well as a few other brands including Brequet and Blancpain here in Toronto during the 90s and 2000s when he encouraged me to aim higher that Rolex was for a lower financial class who were still climbing up social and other ladders.

Nowadays Tudor very much has it’s own strong branding and identity, however earlier era models weren’t as distinct, and quite often shared cases and bracelet styles with their more expensive siblings. I rather think that is where this attitude comes from, but the above comment tends to be espoused by pricks or pricks who can’t afford either brand!

maybe it's for people who want to look poor.

The smarter mans Rolex maybe!

Doesn’t make sense because most Tudor owners are doing pretty well for themselves. It’s a viable alternative to Rolex if you enjoy Rolex design language and convenience of the Garantie Internationale.

I guess not. They appeal to different audiences.

Nice watch btw! 👌