During a watch discussion recently, a friend advanced the view that a Tudor was "...a brilliant buy - you are basically getting a Rolex at a sub Omega price". I know that Tudor & Rolex are owned by the same group & that Hans Wilsdorf founded both of them. My mate is also correct in that Tudors are very keenly priced. My question would be, is his view an over simplification? Tudor have made leaps forward since the 70s & 80s, I'm not sure that it's true to say that "a Tudor is a Rolex" any more, if it ever was...
Speaking as someone with one eye on a blue Pelagos, I'd like to think that a Tudor is as GOOD as a Rolex but that's not the same as saying "a Tudor is a Rolex" - they may be comparable but they are not the same. Perception of Tudor has changed for the better, but how much Rolex DNA does a current Tudor contain?