Tudor IS a poor man’s Rolex
…and there’s nothing wrong with that. First off let me say the phrase “poor man’s Rolex” is (most likely) a phrase used by watch snobs to make themselves feel better about their own insecurities. However, the statement is routed in truth.
So what is the truth of the statement?
Well, let’s start off with what’s not true about the statement. If you can spend $3kUSD on a mechanical watch, you’re not poor; at worst you’re hood rich.
$3k isn’t affordable either, most people on this planet can never dream of spending that money on a watch. What it is, is attainable. If you are around the median income (which is attainable for most people ) and you really want a Tudor, you can attain it.
Now, for the VAST majority of Tudor’s history it was an attainable (poor man’s) Rolex. No if ands or buts about it.
They produced Tudor watches at a lower price point and overtly used the culture capital (branding, prestige, resources, etc) of Rolex to raise the capital of Tudor.
I’m not going to belabor this point any further as it’s fairly obvious.
So the truth of the statement was (and is?) that Tudor is a attainable Rolex.
At this point, I can hear the keyboards starting to fire up…
Tudor has its own history…
Tudor now has its own design language…
Tudor now has its own manufacturing….
I own Tudor and Rolex and they’re both different…
Now, before you sick the angry mob on me, please consider the following questions as I unpack the previous statements:
Why are Tudor and Rolex more often than not sold in the same place?
Why can’t people accept Tudor being a poor man’s Rolex?
We will come back to these questions once I’ve unpacked the Tudor narrative.
Tudor has its own history.
Yup. Tudor has a long history of out of catalogue watches being chosen by militaries for official use. With the most notable being the US Navy and the Marine Nationale.
Governments have strict requirements and strict budgets. They choose not which is the best but which one the performs the most at the cheapest cost. Tudor being chosen consistently is a testament to not only being attainable, aka a poor man’s Rolex but also having commendable and consistent performance.
How did Tudor deliver such consistent performance? That’s a great topic for the next section…
Modern Tudor has it’s own design language and manufacturing
Yup, this success of the Black Bay and their in-house movement has shown this.
However, how did they get here?
Under the guiding hand of Rolex, using their resource and knowledge accumulation, growing congruently.
How long would it have taken them to produce the same watches without the guidance of Rolex?
We will never know for sure... in terms of vintage, I do find it hard to believe that they would have such notable and consistent military use in their history without the manufacturing knowledge of Rolex. I say this considering it was a time when manufacturing knowledge was not as widespread.
In terms of modern day, considering economics or scale and the context of the modern landscape where interest in mechanical watches is generated mostly off nostalgia and tradition: making the exact same watches Tudor is making now would be very difficult to pull off without their intertwined history with Rolex.
I own a Tudor and Rolex and they’re both different.
Yup. That’s by design. Tudor would have never worked if they just made a Rolex with a different logo. However, Tudor also wouldn’t have benefited from the Rolex culture capital if they were too different. So the sweet spot lies somewhere in the overlap of differences and similarities. That’s why Tudor and Rolex are often sold in the same store, in different displays.
So we see that most of the reasons people use to defend against Tudor being a poor man’s Rolex are actually reasons that Tudor and Rolex are inseparable. Tudor wouldn’t be Tudor without Rolex and Rolex wouldn’t be Rolex without Tudor.
Why can’t people accept Tudor as the poor man’s Rolex?
Ah yes, finally, we get to what all this jibber jabber is about…
What I think what most people don’t realize is that by arguing against Tudor being a poor man’s Rolex is you’re actually engaging in reverse snobbery.
When you argue against Tudor being a poor man’s Rolex you are inherently stating 1 and or 2 things. 1, that poor is bad…
Yup, that’s right, in an effort to defend against a malicious attack, by arguing that Tudor watches are indeed NOT cheap you have accidentally affirmed the snob’s logic that poor is bad.
…or 2, that Tudor’s identity and success are independent from Rolex’s. As I laid out previously this is just (most likely) not the case. Sure there is a counter argument to be made but in any case, their successes are intertwined to some degree and not completely independent.
My question is, why would you want to define them as separate in the first place? To me a brand striving to be attainable at multiple price points shows empathy for the consumer and is a positive attribute.
There’s no poor man’s JLC, or poor man’s Patek, even though I’m sure their consumers would appreciate it.
Try to define them as separate feels disingenuous, like the ego is trying to project your own personality onto the brand.
What have we learned?
Tudor wouldn’t be Tudor without Rolex and Rolex wouldn’t be Rolex without Tudor.
Poor isn’t bad and thus Tudor being a poor man’s Rolex isn’t a bad thing.
The ego likes to project your personality on things but that doesn’t make them true
What do we do with this information?
No idea. Live your life, this is just frivolous consumer philosophy and more than likely a complete waste of time.
Welcome to my WatchCrunch profile.
Invicta is the poor man's Rolex.
Rolex is the rich man's Invicta.
Deja vu @PoorMansRolex 🤣😂
Poor is a pejorative in the context of the phrase, and a negative descriptor overall. There is no amount of mental gymnastics that changes those two points. Therefore "Poor man's Rolex" is always a negative, and use of the phrase is generally an indicator of the character of the user.
Obviously it can be used in a tongue-in-cheek way, but that only further exemplifies the negativity of the phrase. It wouldn't work as a joke if it was a neutral phrase.
Fairly successful person here who was once extremely poor. I almost own as many Tudors as Rolex. I want to get what you’re saying but…
To @KristianG’s point, there is no defense of a $3-$5k watch being called a poor man’s anything. When 63% of the US population can’t raise $400 in case of an emergency with using credit, it is just insulting to say a $3k watch is a poor anything.
Regardless of it's history people are choosing Tudor over Rolex for reasons other than cost. This fact now muddies the waters as it's no longer just a cheaper option but often the better option.
"For some years now, I have been considering the idea of making a watch that our agents could sell at a more modest price than our Rolex watches, and yet one that would attain the standard of dependability for which Rolex is famous. I decided to form a separate company, with the object of making and marketing this new watch. It is called the Tudor watch company."
March 6th 1946
H. WILSDORF
Founder of Rolex and Tudor
So in his own words a more modest price sold by his agents,which explains why Rolex AD sell Tudor
Let them eat cake
(Or for the more refined…Qu'ils mangent de la brioche !)
Practice makes perfect 😎
No issue with the link between Rolex and Tudor but “poor man’s Rolex” can be interpreted as “if I had the money I would have bought a Rolex”. Personally I don’t share that sentiment with the current Rolex lineup which, with some exceptions, does not appeal to me. I own both the Tudor BB54 and a 14270 Rolex Explorer. Now, the Tudor 7928 which I used to have, was perhaps a “poor man’s” Rolex 5513 which was of similar design but more expensive.
Invicta is the wise man's Rolex.
A lot of people take ‘poor man’s Rolex’ as an insult or dig at Tudor. A nicer way would be to say Rolex’s little brother or something like that. Indeed in 2024 the little brother is now fully grown and stands on his own two.
Sorry if I misgendered Tudor don’t cancel me pls 🙆🏻♂️🙃
This is the serious pedagogical treatment this argument needed.
I can only address the relativity of poverty. The term is in comparison to the Rolex customer. This is "Bentley is the poor man's Roll's Royce" arena. We could be all stoopit and talk about how nobody that can but a watch at all is poor since mud hut dwellers in Mgumba earn 37 cents a year or something, but that's too broad a scope.
I want to write about how it's a great term as it selectively inflicts narcissistic injury on those with malignant arrogance of some sort, but I can't pithily explain it.
This is the serious pedagogical treatment this argument needed.
I can only address the relativity of poverty. The term is in comparison to the Rolex customer. This is "Bentley is the poor man's Roll's Royce" arena. We could be all stoopit and talk about how nobody that can but a watch at all is poor since mud hut dwellers in Mgumba earn 37 cents a year or something, but that's too broad a scope.
I want to write about how it's a great term as it selectively inflicts narcissistic injury on those with malignant arrogance of some sort, but I can't pithily explain it.
That’s because they’ve allowed the value or rather perceived value of their watch to become intertwined with their own personal value. By calling Tudor a poor man’s Rolex, you are calling them a poor man.
I agree Tudor wouldn’t be Tudor without Rolex, but I think Rolex would be just fine without Tudor.
I'll keep saying it......Tudor is less the "poor man's Rolex" and more the "remember when Rolex was a tool watch"........ The write-up on Tudor's history and affordable prove this statement more
Poor is a pejorative in the context of the phrase, and a negative descriptor overall. There is no amount of mental gymnastics that changes those two points. Therefore "Poor man's Rolex" is always a negative, and use of the phrase is generally an indicator of the character of the user.
Obviously it can be used in a tongue-in-cheek way, but that only further exemplifies the negativity of the phrase. It wouldn't work as a joke if it was a neutral phrase.
Your right. Whe people normal use "poor man's" to describe something, it's usually more of a knock on build quality than price point. It easy to see why people get offended by that phrasing.
Right!?!
Still expensive….i love em both
So ur saying I’m hood rich 🧐😆
So ur saying I’m hood rich 🧐😆
Takes one to know one. 👌
So ur saying I’m hood rich 🧐😆
If you've worn a gold Datejust on your way to purchase Top Ramen... from Dollar General, you might be "hood rich"
For me Rolex is a poor man's Vacheron Constantin. 🤔
Let them eat cake
(Or for the more refined…Qu'ils mangent de la brioche !)
brioche being poor man’s bread?! 😉
Quick consideration: I have to believe Tudor and Rolex have pretty much the same customers. If you can buy a Tudor, you most likely could buy a Rolex, if they let you.
With a 15 cm wrist, regardless of prices, I would totally get a Tudor instead of a Rolex, cause I’m saving a spot or two in the box for a kind of watch that Rolex doesn’t have. And there’s plenty of us!! Luckily some brands are beginning to consider this!! 🤞🏻
Tudor is the comfortable designer chair in the Rolex waiting room…….”this is nice ,I’m happy here”
I simply see Tudor and Rolex as two different watch brands. I hope to keep this unbiased view on them going forward.
#tudor is a subsidiary of #rolex which was stablished by Rolex founder Hans Wilsdorf in 1926 and was created to offer high-quality watches with a more accessible price point than Rolex but it operates as a separate brand, sharing Rolex's expertise, quality control, and manufacturing capabilities.In the last ten years, #tudor has succeeded in establishing its own reputation for exceptionally well-crafted watches, matching the quality of Rolex.
Today, the cliché phrase "poor man’s #rolex seems unfair, given the significant effort they've put into distinguishing themselves as a brand with beautiful timepieces. Here, one pays for the real value of the watch, not the premium of advertising.