Originally Posted by
sweets
From what I see Tudor has plonked itself below the more pricey brands (its parent, for instance) deliberately, and is set on delivering as much quality as it possibly can within that constraint. It is happy in its market-perceived position.
Omega, on the other hand, has ambitions to increase prices to Rolex levels, and seems to have set itself on a path to do so. As such it is punching above where most people think it is placed in the heirachy of brands, and, despite some very good technical innovations, it is struggling to maintain this move up the scale.
What this most affects is depreciation, most of the higher end Omega models seem to drop a lot of their value very quickly (there are some lvoely ones on SC right now that are significantly below RRP and have been tehre for weeks).
Which is a real shame as I like the extra technology and style Omega is busting a gut to put into its watches. I would love to own the Omega Seamaster 300 Master Co-axial, it is a lovely watch. But, to me, it is simply not a £6k watch. Or a £4k watch, or even a £3k watch (well, maybe 3).
Plus, it makes a new Omega a difficult buy, and a used one a good value buy.
I did buy the BB GMT new, and as a Tudor fan ('76 Snowflake, ETA Pelagos and now BB GMT) I love the aesthetic, but the point is that at under £3k with the large power reserve and hour-hacking true GMT, it is a lot of watch for the money.
The Omega has the hands I despise, and at £900 more (RRP) it has little more to recommend it. Sure, it has better magnetic resistance, but no hour hacking, 55 hour reserve not 70, WR that is more, but not usably so (the Tudor's 200m is enough for all but the most qualified of divers). From my perspective, it doesn't justify its additional cost.
I would always recommend the Tudor, I bought one and I really love it. But I do think there is justification for that choice too.
Dave