Reply With QuoteI would agree that providing a Tudor movement was looked after it would last well.
When I was at RSC last year having the bracelet adjusted on my now sold BB58 the female tech told me the in house Tudor was exceptional.
So I joined the Tudor FB group and I have seen a couple times people make comments that a Rolex will last longer than a Tudor (manufacture movement). It got me thinking and to my knowledge, this is misguided.
I presume people say this because of the price difference, primarily. However, when thinking about it I can't see any reason why this would be factual. Rolex uses higher grade steel, but from what I understand, it's main benefit is more corossive resistance. Other than that, the movement is made to a higher spec but this doesn't translate to increased longevity. As long as both are looked after they should both last for decades to come IMO.
What do you guys think?
I would agree that providing a Tudor movement was looked after it would last well.
When I was at RSC last year having the bracelet adjusted on my now sold BB58 the female tech told me the in house Tudor was exceptional.
I have to agree with her. My 58 has gained 2 seconds in 6 weeks. It's just phenomenal.
I don't think I've ever been concerned that a watch wouldn't outlive me...there are watches from 100 years ago that still work.
I think more of it will come down to which brand would still be economically worthwhile servicing in 30+ years time and availability of spares. Considering both are owned by Rolex, that makes them pretty even bets.
I guess with Rolex being worth more it's always going to cost more to "write-off" a Rolex than a Tudor.
Part build quality, but a larger part is asset value.
What’s the material difference between a run-of-the-mill vintage Longines, Omega or Rolex? Not a great deal, other than one of them happens to be more desirable (generally speaking) to buyers and attracts higher re-sale value, so they are perhaps more likely to be kept in circulation due to the name on the dial, as opposed to many cheaper watches left to rust or broken for parts, precious metals etc.
Any possession worth significant money will tend to be that bit better looked-after & cherished, keeping it working & around for longer.
Plus Rolex made a lot of them.
But there is an inherent build quality to a Rolex, at least modern ones, which will undoubtedly aid longevity - 904L steel better resisting small pitting over decades around the case back gasket; solid-gold hands resisting corrosion; a robust, easily-serviced & mass-produced movement with thick plates etc.
But all things being equal there’s no real reason a modern Tudor (or any watch of good quality) couldn’t be made to last as long as a Rolex.
I should imagine the ETA Tudors might fare a bit worse in the longer term than the in-house house versions. I say that because my BBN ETA black bay just ‘feels‘ more delicate when winding than my Harrods which I feels almost tank-like. It’s more a case of how you look after them, whether Rolex or Tudor, I suppose.
Sounds like people just trying to justify the increased cost without accepting that, for the most part, your just paying for the name on the dial. Both movements are too new to know whether there will be any long term issues with them but I don’t see how anyone could say one will last longer than the other, or even that they will last longer than an ETA.
Depends on future values rather than quality per se. A 2k repair on a 2k Tudor is not worth it unless sentimental value is key. A 2k repair on a 10k Rolex is worth it.
Last edited by Ruggertech; 22nd June 2020 at 14:47.
I think both with last a lifetime, and will be still ticking for a long time. I would happily have either a Rolex or Tudur.
Given that there are plenty of both Tudor and Rolex watches around from the 30s that are still in regular use, I’m not convinced that this is a problem most people are likely to be facing.
If you are considering a vintage Tudor then the advantages are marked. Rolex spares are largely unavailable and either no longer made, utterly controlled, or impressively overpriced. Tudor spares? Dead easy.
Modern stuff? No idea.
Yep that’s what I thought; misguided assumptions due the extra cost of a Rolex.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I certainly haven't read anywhere that older Tudors are less likely to last than an equivalent age Rolex and if the conversation was about (new) Tudor in-house movements vs Rolex movements then I can't see why there'd be any difference in longevity there either. If they're serviced then they'll last.
The Tudor GMT movement has had a spotlight shone on it given the reported date change issues however that's it.
why is there an assumption that the in-house movement is better than the eta?
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
It’s not all rosy in the rolex camp when it comes to new movements; ask mr PaskinnerOriginally Posted by CardShark
I guess people know the some “in house” is built by Breitling (and Tudor movements are going into Breitling).
https://www.qpmagazine.com/watch-cul...dor-teamed-up/
I did read Tudor will just swap out the “in-house” movement for a new one at service - that could be apocryphal
the BB58 movement is described as “developed in collaboration with Breitling” here
https://thetruthaboutwatches.com/202...58-hot-or-not/
so let’s give Breitling some credit where it is due - it seemed to have taken a bashing recently - but it can make some stonking movements.
Last edited by MartynJC (UK); 22nd June 2020 at 17:15.
From my understanding only the The Tudor Calibre MT5813 is made by Breitling.
From what I've read of the movement swap-outs (and I've done a fair bit of searching), it was just in the earlier days of the new movements, when Tudor wanted to look into issues with movements returned under warranty and this is no longer done (maybe on the GMT).
Wish mine was that good still around -2.4 per day. But now stop checking & just wear it!
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Haha. I can’t help it! How long have you had yours? Mine was +2 per day for first 6 months.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have seen/heard of lots and lots of issues with new Tudor, but almost none with new Rolex. Take from that what you will.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Like what? I’ve only heard about the GMT issue.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I love Tudor and Rolex watches, and have owned a few of each in the past four years. I have never had to take a Rolex in out of the service schedule.
However, I have now had to send back two Tudor watches in that time. One was a LHD pelagos, the timing and ability to hold power was terrible, it was fixed under warranty by Tudor. My current GMT is with Tudor too as it just stopped working and no matter what, the seconds would just not budge.
Most people on Facebook groups don't know what they're talking about, classic case of the blind leading the blind. Best avoided IMO.
Agreed. It was more on the spur of a bored moment when I joined it.
That tends to happen when a watch stops running. It only takes a tiny fragment of dirt, a tiny hair or fibre in the wrong place, and a watch will stop, it's not rocket science.
I had a wonky cyclops fitted to my new CHNR and it was running outside the +2/-2 specs. Both issues fixed (eventually) by RSC (St James) - but they marked up the side of the case on their timer machine. Luckily cape cod fixed that.
It's 40 years old and the ETA 2776 keeps almost perfect time. The watchmaker who opened it up (but did not service it) in 2017 said it looked and ran like a new movement. It'll outlast me so I'll have got my money's worth out of it.
That’s a lovely piece you have there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think one view to the discussion is parts availability. Having been burned once with a watch that was extremely difficult to find parts for, I always check whether the watch can be maintained.
My current favorites from this perspective are:
- Omega (still produces parts for 56x movements)
- Rolex (promises they'll produce parts 50 years since the end of production?)
Posting Permissions
