My thoughts on Tudor, and other considerations about W&W2022

A lot has been said already about Watches and Wonders 2022, but this is the internet, and here is my unwanted opinion. I would like to focus on Tudor, but at the end of this post, I will also spend a few words about two of the brands that performed the best at this W&W in my opinion: Cartier and Oris. Honorable mentions also go to Vacheron Constantin, Grand Seiko, and Montblanc, who are all working well.

Before getting to the Tudor content you have been promised, a few caveats: I am not a professional watch content creator. I am simply an enthusiast who prefers to remain anonymous for professional reasons, someone who enjoys watches and wants to share his opinion in this mare magnum of watches social media that end up recycling pre-made opinions in most cases. So the details, pictures, and common knowledge information that are easily found on other pages will not be repeated here. I will tag professional content creators, journalists, and bloggers you can follow for data, photos, and footage.

The reason why I would like to focus on Tudor is that I believe it is a maison that draws a lot of interest from a wide range of audiences. Placing itself at the 2000-5000 EUR price point, it is something that anyone can aspire to as a first luxury watch, but also veterans in many cases can enjoy as a beater or fun watch, also thanks to its heritage and noble horological DNA.

In my view, Tudor has been a disappointment at Geneve this year. And it should be a disappointment even if you are not interested in the watches they offer, but you care about the watchmaking industry. Here is why.

I will not talk too much about the watches, but if anyone had any doubt about Tudor's mid-term strategy, now it should be crystal clear. Its promotional video says it all. It starts by saying that it should not be an issue if "someone has been there before", and that we can still enjoy an experience, a reference to the Black Bay Pro. A series of unremarkable general mentions of millennial-friendly topics such as the environment, cute pets, etc. follows, until the end when the Chrono is somehow associated with Mars, which is way cooler than the moon. 

Now, Tudor obviously has been capitalizing on its links to Rolex, on the impossibility to get sought-after pieces coupled with rising prices, and on a relentless and capable marketing department with deep pockets and decennial experience. To be sure, marketing is important, and telling stories is one of the joys of watchmaking. Yet, to what extent? Is a legal affiliation with another company enough to make those stories as fascinating? If the cosmetics brand Sephora or the German sandals manufacturer Birkenstock made watches, could they really spin the marketing narrative in a way that would make it look like they have some sort of brand equity thanks to the fact that they're owned by LVMH, hence somehow connected to Zenith, the prestigious watchmaker? Ok, this is an overstatement, Tudor has indeed heritage. But they're willingly - and maybe lazily, or cleverly - capitalizing on what already works. Rolex designs. Nothing new right? It is good to remind it, however, since comparisons between the Rolex 1655 and the Black Bay Pro are already plenty. "An Explorer II for less than 4k". Yes, but with 15mm of thickness, a movement that is no more manufacture-level than Longines' contemporary calibers (a company owned by, but distinct from, the watchmaker, makes exclusive movements for said watchmaker as well as other ones), and its non-proactive design, that watch, as well as the other Tudor releases, are saying one thing: for years to come, expect that to be the norm. Tudor will be the go-to brand for those who can't get a Rolex. If there was a debate about this until last week, it is now apparent. 

I am exaggerating, there is more to it. And it's true. It's more complex than that, and anyway, it should not be a problem. I worry, however, about 10 years from now, when Tudors will get sold en masse, when the two siblings of the Hans Wilsdorf Foundation will have pushed prices of the other maisons too high, when other brands, will struggle to survive.

Let's take the aforementioned Cartier and Oris. Cartier once again showed Rolex how it's done. Innovating, without losing your heritage and traits. A variety of prices, pieces, and watchmaking skills exhibition that's unparalleled as of now. Rolex will be king of sales for many more years, but if one can dethrone it, that will be Cartier. And Oris. In perfect old Rolex fashion, they introduced one watch, in only 3 variations. Less is more, and not giving a choice actually works better apparently. More importantly, they did not have to manufacture a dubious historical event to claim some sort of heritage, or worse, to hint at an indirect relationship with said events. No story here. Just a kickass watch, with its own identity and its own manufacture movement (for real, in this case), for the same price of the Rolex 1655 homag... of the Black Bay Pro. 

I hope you don't take this post as a long rant about Tudor's new models per se. I wish we could broaden the spectrum of analysis and ask ourselves, as enthusiasts, who do we want to define the market, what kind of brand, and watch, has what kind of identity, and if at all, which of those identities can we relate to. Because it may sound redundant, alarmist, silly, at a time of perfect health of the industry, but watchmaking is a fragile reality, that could suffer both from a lack of demand (such as in the past) but also from an uncontrolled - and maybe unpondered - surge in demand. It takes years to build up and much less to fall. 

"In the end they're just watches", a friend of mine - with an outstanding collection nonetheless - often says. He is right. Yet, if I were in the market for a 4k watch this summer, I would rather reward innovators, and enjoy a unique piece, than get yet another Tudor on the streets. And if you read until here, I don't want you to get me wrong. Tudor is working remarkably. Their marketing is flawless, and if I were in any positions to make decisions there I would not change a thing. Their watches are still nice for the price, but I'm afraid a polarisation of the market may not be good for the industry. I'm afraid that chasing the Rolex we can't get, we will end up killing the maisons we could have got, and regret having almost the watch we wanted rather than something that could've been an unexpected surprise.