Here's my take and behavior. Over the last 6 months I have purchased at retail the Tudor Ranger, Tudor Monochrome and Tudor BB58 GMT for a total retail price of $12,300. That's the approximate grey market pricing of the no date sub. Pricing of the GMT and the monochrome is the same as the retail of the sub. The Rolex is ridiculously overpriced for what it is (I have owned a sub 16610 for 3 decades and love it-so I'm no Rolex hater). My new 3 watch collection will bring much more happiness than a single modern sub. Each of my new Tudors is fabulous and distinct and worn in different settings. I don't value the "Rolex Status" at all, and so 3 for the price of one works great for me.
The value prop of Rolex is even worse for older vintage models. A modern Tudor Black Bay is infinity better quality watch than a Pre-ceramic Sub but is 20% cost of the Rolex. Ditto the Ranger vs Rolex Explorer 1016
I think the burgundy is the one to go for. It has its own identity and is unique to Tudor in the Rolex/Tudor family. While the monochrome is a lovely watch, in the back of your mind, would you always be wondering if you should have spent the extra on the sub?
The Rolex is way more than 20% nicer I think its fair to say. In 5 years you will forget about the price and wish you had spent the xtra every time you look at your wrist.
Like all things. A Z06 can be had for 130k in nice trim. Is the comparable Ferrari worth it? In performance no but that shopper only knows he or she wants a Ferrari.
@@jeremydahm2124 That's a silly comparison.. I do not know too much about those cars but guessing the Z06 is a Nissan....googled and it's a Corvette EW! Not sure how much you know about watches but the Rolex is a super wearable daily driver....... as would be the Hot Nissan.
I have the Monochrome and love it, ive also found the movement to be less than 0.5 secs a day so pretty solid. I also prefer the matt bezel and dial, i think the roles looks a little too shiny!!
I've never owned a Rolex, but did recently get the BB Burgandy Mk3 on 5 link (it's the ONLY diver I'd consider on 5 link/Jubilee. I don't know why it works on this one, but it does). Here's my question: I believe the Tudor Burgandy belongs in a collection ALONGSIDE a Sub. Does the Burgandy belong in a collection with the Monochrome? I don't know. What say y'all?
My personal opinion: the sub is leagues better. Luxury is about the quality of specific materials at the end of the day. At every single detail, from the bezel to the finishing to the type of steel, the Rolex is superior. Just my opinion
The preposterously named "Oystersteel", which is just 904L, can be also found in cheap Steinharts and even cheaper microbrand watches, like the Nadir Vespera for €500. The "superiority" of 904L has been ridiculously overhyped, as has the supposedly higher cost of production. The differences to 316L are marginal, at best. Unless you're taking the watch into salt water several times per day, the slightly higher corrosion resistance is also utterly irrelevant. Don't just blindly believe the marketing BS.
@@L233233 it’s not about superiority, it’s about feel on wrist. I own a ton of 316L watches and I have two with 904L. Personally I think they feel completely different, with the 904L feeling warmer and smoother. I also find the 904L less subject to temperature changes. All I can do is offer my opinion, not sure what it has to do with marketing.
I really like the Rolex but I don’t like the shininess of it. I prefer a more brushed look to watches. Yet, I still have my name on the “interest list” for a no date Submariner. I currently have a Black Bay 54 and I absolutely love it due to the size. It’s just so easy to wear.
I owned the BB41 black with in-house movement for three years and was forced to sell it after 3 years of ownership. I bought the BB58 black in May with rivet bracelet in May brand new and managed to get a £200 discount. I'm keeping it but compared to the BB41 I had it feels underwhelming. Last month I purchased the Monochrome with 5 link bracelet. It is 5 months old and in absolutely pristine condition. I bought that for around £2700 compared to the £3900 price for a new one. It is an unbelievable watch.
nah nothing beats the sub, no doubt. The biggest mistake I made, well, made TWICE was buying a Tudor when I genuinely wanted a Rolex. Pls don't do this guys
Agree. I bought a Burgundy MK2 Black Badmmnd whilst I really enjoyed the watch, ultimately I wanted the Submariner. I've now got the 126610LN and love it
I own the newest version of the Rolex Submariner Date that I got from my local AD. Knowing what I know now, if this Tudor had been around when I was looking to buy my first luxury watch, the Tudor on jubilee would have been my pick.
Once you get pass owning a Rolex (or if you already have one in the collection already), these two are essentially the same watch with the same specs, but one cost half the price.
@mema4922 i hear you... and yes, I do own a Rolex. Though taste may come into play here because I am a DJ fan and that is the one I own. So to me, I don't see much of a difference because I am not a huge dive watch kind of guy. And yes, i do have the closes thing to an Ali Express submariner, the Invicta Pro Diver, which for me scratches that itch. But I understand how for fans of the watch, it would not.
@@planetdee3587 both are great watches no doubt, however, the sub is more refined, is thinner, has a great taper, a greater micro adjustment. It also has white gold hour markers and platinum dusting on the bezel. Furthermore, Rolex uses 904l steel, which has a great lustre than 316l. I'm not going to say that the sub is 'better' than the Tudor monochrome, however, it is very different in terms of finishing and overall execution, to me it is better, it just feels like a step up. This is only something you notice after wearing watches for a while and comparing them. Also, the Rolex is THE dive watch. It is the original, all other divers are derivative, apart from the seamaster, and a couple of others. There is something to be said about being first, it has value imo.
@@mema4922 Problem is, the sub wasn't the first. Blancpain Fifty Fathoms is the daddy of the modern day, monochromatic, divers. Some say that Rolex received great inspiration from the aforementioned watch.
In the last couple of years, I started leaning into the idea of watches as jewelry. To me, the blingy nature of Rolex therefore makes more sense. It’s also why I prefer a DateJust over an Explorer, or why a two tone Deep Sea makes sense. Honestly, if wanted a “tool” watch, I’d get a Casio or even a Garmin.
The Sub and Datejust are 2 Rolex models that are first and foremost a Rolex in my opinion. You will not wear either without people knowing you're wearing a 10 thousand dollar watch, with look at what I have, brand baggage and judgement. I love Rolex but this is true even in Manhattan. Maybe more so here. The Sub is not under the radar in anyway. The Tudor is the choice if you already have a super case Rolex with shiny ceramic. But if you want a Sub, nothing else will satisfy you. Waits are shortening. Momma loves shortening : )
Great video, very accurate analysis. In my 4.5 years in the game as a watch collector and enthusiast, I collected a lot from MAMACOO I was thinking I was able to get a blue SD but I'm not vip enough, but I'm not giving up. Hehe. Great video.
I saw the BB41 monochrome in real and it looks great. I only think they should make the hour hand a bit shorter/smaller like on the Pelagos or GMT. Also I think they should write the max depth in a symmetrical way. My favourite Tudor is the BB54 on the rubber, just the two before mentioned points should be changed there as well ;)
I'm thinking about buying the Tudor. I much prefer the aluminum bezel vs. the shiny ceramic. If so, I'll go for the 5-link bracelet and a rubber strap for versatility. Until then, I'll keep enjoying the heck out my Longines Spirit.
I prefer the more understated elegance of the Tudor, its slender lugs and lack of crown guards harking back to its vintage toolish origins. The Rolex sadly has become too shouty, 'look at me' for my taste.
People who say they're not similar are deluding themselves - if you showed a non watch person these two watches they would think they were the same unless they did a side by side comparison. There's not that much difference in quality either and I say this as an owner of a Submariner 126610LN
Not close. Different sizes, one can have a date, and one has a bezel you can't scratch...... I'd argue the 42mm Pelegos is better than both of them to if value for money counts.
Great side by side shots Bruce. The Sub finishing to my eye is so much crisper and noticeable. Love Tudor and own a Pelagos but between these two for me it has to be the Sub.
I have a Rolex 116610 Ceramic Submariner Date I purchased new from my AD in 2010 before all of the craziness kicked in. I paid under $7K with tax out the door brand new. I also have a 16623 Yachtmaster 2 tome with the blue dial purchased new in 2008, a day date 36 118238 purchased new in 2015 and finally my dad's 1601 2 tone Datejust purchased for him by my mom for their wedding in August of 1959. Both of them are gone now and I cherish this watch more than the rest. I wear it regularly and remember them both every time I look at it. Thankfully I caught the Rolex bug before the rest of the world and purchased all of mine before the shortages directly from my AD and all at a discount. There really isn't one made now that I would rather have than the ones I already do.
Hi Bruce. I think your spot on a versatility. I think it’s the lug width. There such diminishing returns between the two objectively, but if you want a Rolex you want one and nothing else will suffice. Thanks for your great content over the years.
That Tudor has caught my eye since it was introduced. I’m not in the market for another dive watch right now, but it’s hard to beat the price on that thing compared to the submariner.
Thanks for the head to head! Really good job overall! Superlative Chronometer is not an external certification. Its actually better IMHO in that Rolex will fix it while under warranty if it falls outside +/- 2 secs.
great abd impartial review ive both a tudor diver and a sub ..the tudor is a stunning watch at a price that is well below most of its competitors..the sub is a grail i thought id never own and was lucky to get at ad with none of the hassels you hear about .and in all honesty is worth the hype
Good comparison. I prefer some color and a date-window. If Tudor offered BB models with a date-window option they might actually cut into Rolex demand, which I don't think they want to do.
At first glance, it looks like a five digit Sub vs. 124060 comparison. Sub is better, but is it twice the cost better? I’m sure there will be lots of opinions, but both are great watches.
I like the sub better, but it needs to be around $7000… I could justify the price at that level. 10k puts it into straight up luxury, not tool or functional piece.
I see the Rolex being worth about 50% more not more than double the price point. Value easily goes to the Tudor if you simply want a quality watch, BUT if you MUST have a Rolex on your wrist, there's no dobut a black sub might be the best single model you could buy. Goes with anything.
My take because I own a submariner and I have owned the same Tudor one with Burgandy and the monochrome. Tudor is 60% of the way there. Not as refined, not as luxurious, not as lustrous, is in fact a much lesser watch. With that said i would never pay full retail for any Tudor so just buy them second hand for a big discount. Submariner is still a much better watch that increases in value.
The information that Rolex makers are relevant to Tudor manufacturing warming up my “submariner buying dream” need. Tudors are the original Rolex homage, I think. Like Armani Jeans remains Armani Couture, but it’s affordable. Tudor is true Rolex goods.
The Submariner is better looking, better designed, and better shaped. It's the better watch. But is it 2 x better? IMO, yes, it is. It looks and wears a lot better. It's also the original, a design icon that transcends watches. The Tudor is an homage that helps fill the gap of the Submariner. Is it 3 x better if you can't get one at retail? IMO, no it's not. No one should pay more than retail for the Submariner, or pretty much any mass produced modern watch. Personally, I'd get the burgundy over the monochrome. It stands on its own.
The Gold submariner is best in my opinion 🎉🎉 as for the tudor I just got the burgundy on jubilee 🎉 really really understated .. very nice piece even get a gmt feel.. ❤
“The Rolex is bigger”. What, because the case width is 0.1mm wider? The Tudor is 1.2mm longer lug-to-lug and 1mm thicker. These are much more noticeable than the a tiny increase in case width. Tudor 41mm watches are chunky things.
The Submariner by an absolute mile in every aspect. If you just want a watch with good specs then their are cheaper options than a Tudor as well. Buying a luxury watch isnt just about specs is it? Its about the feeling you get when you put it on your wrist. The Sub is a piece of history, the Tudor is not and never will be...
I agree, while certain Tudor Models really can stand on their own (and i think the red Bezel can as well as old Heritage Chrono, Northflag, even the Pelagos) a lot of them are just cheaper and significantly downgraded options of desirable Rolex Models for people who dont want to or cant pay Rolex Money : The Monochrome is a cheap sub, Pro is a Cheap ExII and the Ranger is a cheap Explorer). It shouldn't have to be that way but is seams that Rolex keeps an Eye on what the little sister is allowed to produce and if it interferes with a popular Rolex Model some design choice will be made to ensure it is the inferior version.
With Rolex, you pay for the premium work - polished cases, links, white gold markers, hands, and 904 Steel and movement. They make it like jewelry. Tudor has always been designed to be the cheaper alternative. Less shine, 316 standard steel, etc... this is the cost diff aside from the branding. This is bad for Tudor because they are known as the poor mans Rolex, thats how it came about, as it is available and affordable w quality. This is good for Tudor because people can buy them feeling like they have a Rolex quality watch. Either way, Rolex makes all sales which ever brand you choose!!!
So basically the Tudor is not a modern equivalent anyway, and the positives over the Rolex are pretty weak? Straps lol. The small wrist thing is marginal, and its thicker anyway. I would get a Pelagos 39...... crown guards and no rivets!!........ and expect a discount. Re. security, people are buying it exactly because it looks so much like a Sub. Do thieves really know it's not one? Does the owner simply have to say "It's only a Tudor" and the perp apologises and walks away? Cost is cost, people can afford different amounts. That said, the difference between $4k and $8k on a watch is way less significant than the difference between $100 and $4k IMO, so those spending $4k and giving out financial advice to those spending $8k is funny. Best advice is just buy the one you prefer, or maybe a San Martin. They are all very very different, and comparing as a worthy alternative is futile. You get what you pay for unfortunately. Buy the Tudor while you wait for the Sub ; )
Great video, I think you hit it exactly on the head with your points on both. As a Tudor and Rolex owner myself, it's like saying a 1969 stingray corvette is similar to the 2025 ZR-1. The way they feel nothing alike on the wrist is comparably equal to the way they look nothing alike on the wrist as well. The profile of the bracelets is completely different, from the size and taper down to the brushed finish. Not to mention the Rivets which I think most of us could do without. while the clasp is good on the BB, the Subs is incredible, but Tudor is 1up with ceramic detent balls on the clasp, kudos to them here. But the material of a sub outclasses it in every other way, from the steel to the white gold, the material doesn't even feel the same on your wrist. The bezel on a bb is difficult to use while the subs is like a dream. The sub rehalt is a work of art in itself and the bezel inset is just beautiful compared to the old-style aluminum insert, and you avoid the pesky scratches. Now the Tudor is just as unique as the submariner in its own way and its class and beauty gives you the creature comforts of a modern watch with the retro-esthetics we all want on our wrist. There is nothing comparable to the Black Bay equally to how there is nothing comparable to the submariner. Having one or the other is great if that is the watch you desire, they are both a master class in my opinion. And having both in a rotation is lovely, although You'll find yourself picking a new favorite each week, while the other one sits in the drawer quite jealous until you fall back in love with it once it gets on your wrist again. And if you think that was a lot to type, I'm speaking into a microphone using windows built in speak to text feature, so really, it was no trouble at all. haha
I'm not sure why this video showed up in my recommendations; even an entry level Squale would be a notable financial burden, though I suppose this gives me good insight into the world of horology above my comfort level.
🤔It's surprising that a prestigious brand like Tudor should need to copy another brand's model, like a small brand trying to make a name for itself. This just goes to show that Rolex remains the master of the game and remains at the top of the hierarchy, because the reverse is unthinkable: Rolex won't copy a Tudor.
The Submariner was a tool watch that built a reputation on reliability but is it a tool watch today? If not what is its purpose other than to be a status symbol to people who have a limited knowledge of the watch world.
Tudor ruins it with that hour hand and worse materials. Sure I don’t need platinum numbers on the bezel but everything else is mediocre on a Tudor. Take the Pelagos, type 2 titanium is mediocre while type 5 is superior in finish and scratch resistance.
They cannot be compared Bruce. Maybe seen through the bottom of a beerglass they look similar. The movement of the Rolex is far superior. I am a watchmaker and worked on both. The Tudor is not a luxury watch.
I was in the market for a sub. I tried on both modern and neovintage examples. I was VERY unimpressed for the price. I elected to buy the black bay 54 and could not be happier. The quality is extremely close but for 1/3 of the cost. I feel MORE confident wearing the tudor knowing i didnt waste cash on a name.
I own a Black Bay and I love Tudor but the fact is you can wear the Rolex for five years and turn around and get every penny that you paid for it back. It is money in the bank where the Tudor will cost you 40% to own. This is a no brainer, if you can afford it and have the opportunity to pick one up form an AD, Rolex is the way to go.
Tudor is a bit boring imho. The Rolex is more interesting because of the materials. The Rolex looks and is more expensive and that is a good thing I quess. The Rolex is much more expensive and the Tudor will not scratch that itch if you want in your heart the Rolex and settle for the Tudor. Save money for the Rolex if that is what you want!
I owned the 2023 burgundy Tudor. Nice watch, in many ways similar to Rolex but not an alternative. The issue I have with "full size" Black Bays is that their vintage-inspired design is out of whack with the dimensions. I think Tudor should discontinue the line and focus the vintage designs on Black Bay 58. Burgundy-gilt 58 or even 54 would be amazing.
@@BruceWilliams Makes sense and it wouldn't surprise me, numbers are king after all. I'm just speaking as a watch nerd, and us watch nerds have an alternative sense of sense.
The Tudor rivet bracelet will be impossible to size for some people without part links. The reason it's only 8mm travel (less than the length of a link) is because of those rivets sticking out that prevent movement inside the clasp. Tudor need to do a modern dive watch with no silly rivets or outdated aluminium bezel before it can be compared to the Submariner, but this would be the return of the fabled Tudor Submariner in all but name, so unlikely to happen. The Rolex at list is the better value IMO. In 5 years it will be worth what you paid for it and you will have paid off the loan!
No thank you for the fake rivets. That’s terrible, I’d rather buy a Seiko than that Tudor. I don’t like fake vents on cars and I don’t like fake rivets on watches.
Personally, if I bought the Tudor, I’d regret not buying (or trying to buy…) the Rolex. In reality, neither of these are tool watches - they are awesome, expensive pieces of jewellery 🙂. If I want a tool watch, I’ll buy a Seiko. The Rolex plays with the light more, to my eye - particularly the ceramic bezel and white gold surrounds on the indices. If I was cross shopping, I actually prefer the burgundy bezel version that Bruce has. That’s a lovely watch, particularly with that jubilee bracelet.
they are both same in everything .. same manufacturer but they change the name for more profit .. having 2 with different names is a marketing strategy to cover more area in the market 😁
If its the same one as onnthe bb58, the 3 link bracelet on the tudor is absolute garbage. Their 5 link bracelet is so much nicer and feels much higher quality imo.
ive recently purchased a Tudor BB58 GMT with strap at retail store with approximately 20% off . I also own a 126613lb bluesy it`s nice and all but costs 4.5 times more than the Tudor. I appreciate both of them but the bluesy is simply not 5 times better than the Tudor ,the price difference is insane. I`m a big fan of Rolex but it`s simply overpriced. Not to mention the service and hospitality I`ve experienced at Tudor is 100 times better than at Rolex.
Another could be magnificent Tudor ruined by the faux rivets. Meanwhile the ugly cheaplooking Ranger gets the nice bracelet. I like the blue BB 58 but the rivets and no t-fit ruins it. I will get a Tudor for my collection at some point. Great channel Bruce.
Spec comparisons are kinda pointless, as for half price of a Tudor get a Longines, or half the L0ngines price for a Christopher Ward. Non of these are investments, maybe the Rolex will retain value better, but invest in stocks and shares to make money. So you buy what gives you the feels. If you hearts desire is a Rolex, no amount of Tudors will scratch the itch. I bought a 14060m Sub which is a close match to the Tudor, and have worn both side by side. If you don't mind the snowflakes and branding the Tudor is great. But for me, it had to be Rolex. Neither make financial sense.
Here's my take and behavior. Over the last 6 months I have purchased at retail the Tudor Ranger, Tudor Monochrome and Tudor BB58 GMT for a total retail price of $12,300. That's the approximate grey market pricing of the no date sub. Pricing of the GMT and the monochrome is the same as the retail of the sub. The Rolex is ridiculously overpriced for what it is (I have owned a sub 16610 for 3 decades and love it-so I'm no Rolex hater). My new 3 watch collection will bring much more happiness than a single modern sub. Each of my new Tudors is fabulous and distinct and worn in different settings. I don't value the "Rolex Status" at all, and so 3 for the price of one works great for me.
Hate the Rolex status bs. I own a sea dweller and rarely wear it because of it.
Beautiful collection BTW.
The value prop of Rolex is even worse for older vintage models. A modern Tudor Black Bay is infinity better quality watch than a Pre-ceramic Sub but is 20% cost of the Rolex. Ditto the Ranger vs Rolex Explorer 1016
cope harder
It's awesome building a great collection for the equivalent of a marked up Rolex. Makes the aftermarket values of some rolex seem even more ludicrous
The Tudor sub looks really nice with the jubilee.
I think the burgundy is the one to go for. It has its own identity and is unique to Tudor in the Rolex/Tudor family. While the monochrome is a lovely watch, in the back of your mind, would you always be wondering if you should have spent the extra on the sub?
Basically the Rolex is 20% nicer for double the price. Whether that’s worth it or not is down to the buyer ;)
Rolex is double the money for 5 times the status symbol...of that matter to you😊
The Rolex is way more than 20% nicer I think its fair to say.
In 5 years you will forget about the price and wish you had spent the xtra every time you look at your wrist.
Like all things. A Z06 can be had for 130k in nice trim. Is the comparable Ferrari worth it? In performance no but that shopper only knows he or she wants a Ferrari.
@@wristopia4101this is true
@@jeremydahm2124 That's a silly comparison..
I do not know too much about those cars but guessing the Z06 is a Nissan....googled and it's a Corvette EW!
Not sure how much you know about watches but the Rolex is a super wearable daily driver....... as would be the Hot Nissan.
I have the Monochrome and love it, ive also found the movement to be less than 0.5 secs a day so pretty solid. I also prefer the matt bezel and dial, i think the roles looks a little too shiny!!
One nice plus of the Tudor is the OEM availability of a 5 link bracelet.
I've never owned a Rolex, but did recently get the BB Burgandy Mk3 on 5 link (it's the ONLY diver I'd consider on 5 link/Jubilee. I don't know why it works on this one, but it does). Here's my question:
I believe the Tudor Burgandy belongs in a collection ALONGSIDE a Sub. Does the Burgandy belong in a collection with the Monochrome? I don't know. What say y'all?
My personal opinion: the sub is leagues better. Luxury is about the quality of specific materials at the end of the day. At every single detail, from the bezel to the finishing to the type of steel, the Rolex is superior. Just my opinion
The preposterously named "Oystersteel", which is just 904L, can be also found in cheap Steinharts and even cheaper microbrand watches, like the Nadir Vespera for €500. The "superiority" of 904L has been ridiculously overhyped, as has the supposedly higher cost of production. The differences to 316L are marginal, at best. Unless you're taking the watch into salt water several times per day, the slightly higher corrosion resistance is also utterly irrelevant. Don't just blindly believe the marketing BS.
Nope, you are paying for the brand and its marketing to flex on others...even if you don't want to
@@L233233 it’s not about superiority, it’s about feel on wrist. I own a ton of 316L watches and I have two with 904L. Personally I think they feel completely different, with the 904L feeling warmer and smoother. I also find the 904L less subject to temperature changes. All I can do is offer my opinion, not sure what it has to do with marketing.
@@ViolinistWilliam That's purely psychological. You expect it to be different, so you think it feels differently.
@@ViolinistWilliamEven the fakes are using 904L these days.
I really like the Rolex but I don’t like the shininess of it. I prefer a more brushed look to watches. Yet, I still have my name on the “interest list” for a no date Submariner. I currently have a Black Bay 54 and I absolutely love it due to the size. It’s just so easy to wear.
I owned the BB41 black with in-house movement for three years and was forced to sell it after 3 years of ownership. I bought the BB58 black in May with rivet bracelet in May brand new and managed to get a £200 discount. I'm keeping it but compared to the BB41 I had it feels underwhelming. Last month I purchased the Monochrome with 5 link bracelet. It is 5 months old and in absolutely pristine condition. I bought that for around £2700 compared to the £3900 price for a new one. It is an unbelievable watch.
The Submariner 124060 is absolute dive watch perfection, no other diver on the market right now can compete with it period !
nah nothing beats the sub, no doubt. The biggest mistake I made, well, made TWICE was buying a Tudor when I genuinely wanted a Rolex. Pls don't do this guys
Good comment
Agree. I bought a Burgundy MK2 Black Badmmnd whilst I really enjoyed the watch, ultimately I wanted the Submariner. I've now got the 126610LN and love it
Yup never look back on Tudor.. 😂 I would prefer Omega than Tudor..
@@HL-OOI not a fan of omega but yes, don't buy tudor
But 2-3x price of Tudor was the reason when you bought not Rolex. Ultra prior unbeatable reason, which was week versus your “I want sub” feeling)
As always the most thoughtful , well researched & eloquent watch channel around , keep MAMACOO coming !
I own the newest version of the Rolex Submariner Date that I got from my local AD. Knowing what I know now, if this Tudor had been around when I was looking to buy my first luxury watch, the Tudor on jubilee would have been my pick.
Agreed both great watches have a friendly day
Once you get pass owning a Rolex (or if you already have one in the collection already), these two are essentially the same watch with the same specs, but one cost half the price.
By that logic, just by an Ali express submariner.
Also, they are not the same watches at all. You clearly don't own a Rolex.
@mema4922 i hear you... and yes, I do own a Rolex. Though taste may come into play here because I am a DJ fan and that is the one I own. So to me, I don't see much of a difference because I am not a huge dive watch kind of guy. And yes, i do have the closes thing to an Ali Express submariner, the Invicta Pro Diver, which for me scratches that itch. But I understand how for fans of the watch, it would not.
@@planetdee3587 both are great watches no doubt, however, the sub is more refined, is thinner, has a great taper, a greater micro adjustment. It also has white gold hour markers and platinum dusting on the bezel. Furthermore, Rolex uses 904l steel, which has a great lustre than 316l. I'm not going to say that the sub is 'better' than the Tudor monochrome, however, it is very different in terms of finishing and overall execution, to me it is better, it just feels like a step up. This is only something you notice after wearing watches for a while and comparing them.
Also, the Rolex is THE dive watch. It is the original, all other divers are derivative, apart from the seamaster, and a couple of others. There is something to be said about being first, it has value imo.
@@planetdee3587 I'd recommend trying them both on and comparing them, it's the tiny details that elevate one over the other.
@@mema4922 Problem is, the sub wasn't the first. Blancpain Fifty Fathoms is the daddy of the modern day, monochromatic, divers. Some say that Rolex received great inspiration from the aforementioned watch.
I went with the Tudor BB 925. Aka silver. ❤
Fantastic choice!!!! I really love Tudor and what they offer. It is more my style than Rolex personally.
@@theoriginaljohngalt2450 100% agree. 👍 I much prefer the more tool like look 👀
I have owned this watch for a couple years. It’s one of my favorites.
Excellent choice!
Fresh and clean
Outstanding video.I have to go with the AMZWATCH, especially with that green dial as my favorite
In the last couple of years, I started leaning into the idea of watches as jewelry. To me, the blingy nature of Rolex therefore makes more sense. It’s also why I prefer a DateJust over an Explorer, or why a two tone Deep Sea makes sense. Honestly, if wanted a “tool” watch, I’d get a Casio or even a Garmin.
The Sub and Datejust are 2 Rolex models that are first and foremost a Rolex in my opinion. You will not wear either without people knowing you're wearing a 10 thousand dollar watch, with look at what I have, brand baggage and judgement. I love Rolex but this is true even in Manhattan. Maybe more so here. The Sub is not under the radar in anyway. The Tudor is the choice if you already have a super case Rolex with shiny ceramic. But if you want a Sub, nothing else will satisfy you. Waits are shortening. Momma loves shortening : )
really miss when subs had matte dials, thats just a much cleaner look to me
Great video, very accurate analysis. In my 4.5 years in the game as a watch collector and enthusiast, I collected a lot from MAMACOO I was thinking I was able to get a blue SD but I'm not vip enough, but I'm not giving up. Hehe. Great video.
I saw the BB41 monochrome in real and it looks great. I only think they should make the hour hand a bit shorter/smaller like on the Pelagos or GMT. Also I think they should write the max depth in a symmetrical way. My favourite Tudor is the BB54 on the rubber, just the two before mentioned points should be changed there as well ;)
I'm thinking about buying the Tudor. I much prefer the aluminum bezel vs. the shiny ceramic. If so, I'll go for the 5-link bracelet and a rubber strap for versatility. Until then, I'll keep enjoying the heck out my Longines Spirit.
I prefer the more understated elegance of the Tudor, its slender lugs and lack of crown guards harking back to its vintage toolish origins. The Rolex sadly has become too shouty, 'look at me' for my taste.
People who say they're not similar are deluding themselves - if you showed a non watch person these two watches they would think they were the same unless they did a side by side comparison. There's not that much difference in quality either and I say this as an owner of a Submariner 126610LN
Not close. Different sizes, one can have a date, and one has a bezel you can't scratch......
I'd argue the 42mm Pelegos is better than both of them to if value for money counts.
The Pelagos looks like plastic.
My next video will be on my Pelly LHD
Great side by side shots Bruce. The Sub finishing to my eye is so much crisper and noticeable. Love Tudor and own a Pelagos but between these two for me it has to be the Sub.
I have a Rolex 116610 Ceramic Submariner Date I purchased new from my AD in 2010 before all of the craziness kicked in. I paid under $7K with tax out the door brand new. I also have a 16623 Yachtmaster 2 tome with the blue dial purchased new in 2008, a day date 36 118238 purchased new in 2015 and finally my dad's 1601 2 tone Datejust purchased for him by my mom for their wedding in August of 1959. Both of them are gone now and I cherish this watch more than the rest. I wear it regularly and remember them both every time I look at it. Thankfully I caught the Rolex bug before the rest of the world and purchased all of mine before the shortages directly from my AD and all at a discount. There really isn't one made now that I would rather have than the ones I already do.
Hi Bruce. I think your spot on a versatility. I think it’s the lug width. There such diminishing returns between the two objectively, but if you want a Rolex you want one and nothing else will suffice. Thanks for your great content over the years.
That Tudor has caught my eye since it was introduced. I’m not in the market for another dive watch right now, but it’s hard to beat the price on that thing compared to the submariner.
Thanks for the head to head! Really good job overall!
Superlative Chronometer is not an external certification. Its actually better IMHO in that Rolex will fix it while under warranty if it falls outside +/- 2 secs.
IMO the best 41mm diver for the money is a used Seamaster 300 (heritage line).
A classic! Summer blue has been my favorite release also far (outside the stone dials)
I agree! 👍
Yes! I’m wearing mine now. Left the GMT Master II in the safe today😁
One very important aspect in the comparison is the feeling when winding up the watch. The Sub feel so "strong" and precise. Uncomparable...
great abd impartial review ive both a tudor diver and a sub ..the tudor is a stunning watch at a price that is well below most of its competitors..the sub is a grail i thought id never own and was lucky to get at ad with none of the hassels you hear about .and in all honesty is worth the hype
I also own the burgundy Metas.
I really like the watch, even though it doesn't have a date I'm ok with that.
I like all the color versions better than the monochrome, which is nice too.
Good comparison. I prefer some color and a date-window. If Tudor offered BB models with a date-window option they might actually cut into Rolex demand, which I don't think they want to do.
That is a good point. They can't make it too good lol
I have the pelagos 39 which is similar to both of these but for the titanium
At first glance, it looks like a five digit Sub vs. 124060 comparison. Sub is better, but is it twice the cost better? I’m sure there will be lots of opinions, but both are great watches.
I like the sub better, but it needs to be around $7000… I could justify the price at that level. 10k puts it into straight up luxury, not tool or functional piece.
My first sub back in 2013 retailed for 7 if I remember correctly.
Either way Rolex makes money.. Personally I like them both.
exactly.
So true
Crown guard and thinness of the watch wins it. But the 5 digit Sub is still the greatest reference.
I see the Rolex being worth about 50% more not more than double the price point. Value easily goes to the Tudor if you simply want a quality watch, BUT if you MUST have a Rolex on your wrist, there's no dobut a black sub might be the best single model you could buy. Goes with anything.
My take because I own a submariner and I have owned the same Tudor one with Burgandy and the monochrome. Tudor is 60% of the way there. Not as refined, not as luxurious, not as lustrous, is in fact a much lesser watch.
With that said i would never pay full retail for any Tudor so just buy them second hand for a big discount.
Submariner is still a much better watch that increases in value.
The information that Rolex makers are relevant to Tudor manufacturing warming up my “submariner buying dream” need. Tudors are the original Rolex homage, I think. Like Armani Jeans remains Armani Couture, but it’s affordable. Tudor is true Rolex goods.
The Submariner is better looking, better designed, and better shaped. It's the better watch. But is it 2 x better? IMO, yes, it is. It looks and wears a lot better. It's also the original, a design icon that transcends watches. The Tudor is an homage that helps fill the gap of the Submariner.
Is it 3 x better if you can't get one at retail? IMO, no it's not. No one should pay more than retail for the Submariner, or pretty much any mass produced modern watch.
Personally, I'd get the burgundy over the monochrome. It stands on its own.
Purchased my Monochrome several months ago. This will be my legacy watch, will give it to my daughter so she can pass it on..
Indeed.
Not even close...the Rolex is clearly better when looking closely at the details. Good luck trying to sell the Tudor.
The Gold submariner is best in my opinion 🎉🎉 as for the tudor I just got the burgundy on jubilee 🎉 really really understated .. very nice piece even get a gmt feel.. ❤
“The Rolex is bigger”. What, because the case width is 0.1mm wider? The Tudor is 1.2mm longer lug-to-lug and 1mm thicker. These are much more noticeable than the a tiny increase in case width. Tudor 41mm watches are chunky things.
Steeldive Submariner for me, NH35. I know it’s an unpopular opinion, and it’s not a Rolex but it’s seriously an amazing homage for $100.
I’m getting a Tudor instead of a Rolex
The Submariner by an absolute mile in every aspect. If you just want a watch with good specs then their are cheaper options than a Tudor as well. Buying a luxury watch isnt just about specs is it? Its about the feeling you get when you put it on your wrist. The Sub is a piece of history, the Tudor is not and never will be...
Totally agree
Valid point
I agree, while certain Tudor Models really can stand on their own (and i think the red Bezel can as well as old Heritage Chrono, Northflag, even the Pelagos) a lot of them are just cheaper and significantly downgraded options of desirable Rolex Models for people who dont want to or cant pay Rolex Money : The Monochrome is a cheap sub, Pro is a Cheap ExII and the Ranger is a cheap Explorer). It shouldn't have to be that way but is seams that Rolex keeps an Eye on what the little sister is allowed to produce and if it interferes with a popular Rolex Model some design choice will be made to ensure it is the inferior version.
No.1 rule in this hobby: Do not settle.
God!!! MAMACOO Who would have thought those gorgeous watches go for that low!!!
With Rolex, you pay for the premium work - polished cases, links, white gold markers, hands, and 904 Steel and movement. They make it like jewelry. Tudor has always been designed to be the cheaper alternative. Less shine, 316 standard steel, etc... this is the cost diff aside from the branding. This is bad for Tudor because they are known as the poor mans Rolex, thats how it came about, as it is available and affordable w quality. This is good for Tudor because people can buy them feeling like they have a Rolex quality watch. Either way, Rolex makes all sales which ever brand you choose!!!
Nice comparison! I went with the Seamaster ;-)
Great choice
So basically the Tudor is not a modern equivalent anyway, and the positives over the Rolex are pretty weak?
Straps lol.
The small wrist thing is marginal, and its thicker anyway.
I would get a Pelagos 39...... crown guards and no rivets!!........ and expect a discount.
Re. security, people are buying it exactly because it looks so much like a Sub.
Do thieves really know it's not one?
Does the owner simply have to say "It's only a Tudor" and the perp apologises and walks away?
Cost is cost, people can afford different amounts. That said, the difference between $4k and $8k on a watch is way less significant than the difference between $100 and $4k IMO, so those spending $4k and giving out financial advice to those spending $8k is funny.
Best advice is just buy the one you prefer, or maybe a San Martin.
They are all very very different, and comparing as a worthy alternative is futile.
You get what you pay for unfortunately.
Buy the Tudor while you wait for the Sub ; )
That Rolex is gorgeous!
Great video, I think you hit it exactly on the head with your points on both. As a Tudor and Rolex owner myself, it's like saying a 1969 stingray corvette is similar to the 2025 ZR-1. The way they feel nothing alike on the wrist is comparably equal to the way they look nothing alike on the wrist as well. The profile of the bracelets is completely different, from the size and taper down to the brushed finish. Not to mention the Rivets which I think most of us could do without. while the clasp is good on the BB, the Subs is incredible, but Tudor is 1up with ceramic detent balls on the clasp, kudos to them here. But the material of a sub outclasses it in every other way, from the steel to the white gold, the material doesn't even feel the same on your wrist. The bezel on a bb is difficult to use while the subs is like a dream. The sub rehalt is a work of art in itself and the bezel inset is just beautiful compared to the old-style aluminum insert, and you avoid the pesky scratches. Now the Tudor is just as unique as the submariner in its own way and its class and beauty gives you the creature comforts of a modern watch with the retro-esthetics we all want on our wrist. There is nothing comparable to the Black Bay equally to how there is nothing comparable to the submariner. Having one or the other is great if that is the watch you desire, they are both a master class in my opinion. And having both in a rotation is lovely, although You'll find yourself picking a new favorite each week, while the other one sits in the drawer quite jealous until you fall back in love with it once it gets on your wrist again. And if you think that was a lot to type, I'm speaking into a microphone using windows built in speak to text feature, so really, it was no trouble at all. haha
Excellent comments
I found the Tudor extremely underwhelming when I tried it on. The Sub is on another level
I have to say that MAMACOO 's watches are amazing!
Sub all they long. Over a certain price it is not so important anymore. You eigther are able to pay the bucks or not.
I'm not sure why this video showed up in my recommendations; even an entry level Squale would be a notable financial burden, though I suppose this gives me good insight into the world of horology above my comfort level.
🤔It's surprising that a prestigious brand like Tudor should need to copy another brand's model, like a small brand trying to make a name for itself. This just goes to show that Rolex remains the master of the game and remains at the top of the hierarchy, because the reverse is unthinkable: Rolex won't copy a Tudor.
The Submariner was a tool watch that built a reputation on reliability but is it a tool watch today? If not what is its purpose other than to be a status symbol to people who have a limited knowledge of the watch world.
Tudor ruins it with that hour hand and worse materials. Sure I don’t need platinum numbers on the bezel but everything else is mediocre on a Tudor. Take the Pelagos, type 2 titanium is mediocre while type 5 is superior in finish and scratch resistance.
They cannot be compared Bruce. Maybe seen through the bottom of a beerglass they look similar. The movement of the Rolex is far superior. I am a watchmaker and worked on both. The Tudor is not a luxury watch.
I’ve had a BB58 blue for 3 months now and love it more every day. The piece itself is incredible and I enjoy having a watch within this family.
I was in the market for a sub. I tried on both modern and neovintage examples. I was VERY unimpressed for the price. I elected to buy the black bay 54 and could not be happier. The quality is extremely close but for 1/3 of the cost. I feel MORE confident wearing the tudor knowing i didnt waste cash on a name.
My only issue with the Tudor is the thickness. Maybe they can use the BB58 movement in this one?🤷♂️
Give me a ceramic bezel I'll take tge monochrome
I own a Black Bay and I love Tudor but the fact is you can wear the Rolex for five years and turn around and get every penny that you paid for it back. It is money in the bank where the Tudor will cost you 40% to own. This is a no brainer, if you can afford it and have the opportunity to pick one up form an AD, Rolex is the way to go.
Bruce I have a question - should I buy Tudor Monochrome or Oris Great Barrier Reef Limited IV? two really stunning pieces and the price quite the same
Considering I don't know your preferences or watch collection i would have to say whichever one you think you would enjoy wearing more :)
@@BruceWilliams thanks. Could U please make a review of Oris Great Barrier Reef Limited IV?
The Rolex has anti reflective coating? Really? I thought they refused to use it as it wasn't good enough yet...
the finally started putting it on
Love the Tudor honestly.
Can you do a video on the base Panerai logos vs the 000's of the past?
Tudor is a bit boring imho. The Rolex is more interesting because of the materials. The Rolex looks and is more expensive and that is a good thing I quess. The Rolex is much more expensive and the Tudor will not scratch that itch if you want in your heart the Rolex and settle for the Tudor. Save money for the Rolex if that is what you want!
Both nice but the P39 edges them both as no faux rivets and not too thick.
Do you get the call faster if you enter Rolex AD saying "my Tudor is better, change my mind" ? Would be a good argument to have them both 😅
I owned the 2023 burgundy Tudor. Nice watch, in many ways similar to Rolex but not an alternative. The issue I have with "full size" Black Bays is that their vintage-inspired design is out of whack with the dimensions. I think Tudor should discontinue the line and focus the vintage designs on Black Bay 58. Burgundy-gilt 58 or even 54 would be amazing.
I think the reason they don't is the best seller is still 40.5mm
@@BruceWilliams Makes sense and it wouldn't surprise me, numbers are king after all. I'm just speaking as a watch nerd, and us watch nerds have an alternative sense of sense.
Another great video brother! Owned the sub and have the monochrome now…both are great! Love the tool watch vibe from the Tudor!
The Tudor rivet bracelet will be impossible to size for some people without part links.
The reason it's only 8mm travel (less than the length of a link) is because of those rivets sticking out that prevent movement inside the clasp.
Tudor need to do a modern dive watch with no silly rivets or outdated aluminium bezel before it can be compared to the Submariner, but this would be the return of the fabled Tudor Submariner in all but name, so unlikely to happen.
The Rolex at list is the better value IMO.
In 5 years it will be worth what you paid for it and you will have paid off the loan!
No thank you for the fake rivets. That’s terrible, I’d rather buy a Seiko than that Tudor. I don’t like fake vents on cars and I don’t like fake rivets on watches.
You can get that one on a jubilee-esque bracelet. Tudor just calls it a 5 link bracelet
Buying watch is dead. No one cares anymore 😢😢😢😢
I love your content. But at 2:45 the reflection of the light makes it very bad to see the watch.
Appreciate it!
The omega planet ocean liquidmetal limted edition beats boths hands down
can u maybe made review of new Seiko Prospex Marinemaster SBDX065/SLA079 and compare with Tudor BB Monochrome
The monochrome looks better too. 👍
Die Rolex Submariner No Date 124060 ist das Maß der Dinge daneben gibt es nichts
I like the Tudor Monochrome on 5-link but like my OG Monta better. Love the Sub but love the Bruce Wayne GMT on Jubilee even more.
Personally, if I bought the Tudor, I’d regret not buying (or trying to buy…) the Rolex. In reality, neither of these are tool watches - they are awesome, expensive pieces of jewellery 🙂. If I want a tool watch, I’ll buy a Seiko.
The Rolex plays with the light more, to my eye - particularly the ceramic bezel and white gold surrounds on the indices.
If I was cross shopping, I actually prefer the burgundy bezel version that Bruce has. That’s a lovely watch, particularly with that jubilee bracelet.
they are both same in everything .. same manufacturer but they change the name for more profit .. having 2 with different names is a marketing strategy to cover more area in the market 😁
This came up on my UA-cam and I loved your content this was so informative. Thank you for making this
I really appreciate that. I've been trying to up the quality of my content.
The sub is way too bling bling
Tudor needs to release that Monochrome in a 37mm like the 54
If its the same one as onnthe bb58, the 3 link bracelet on the tudor is absolute garbage. Their 5 link bracelet is so much nicer and feels much higher quality imo.
ive recently purchased a Tudor BB58 GMT with strap at retail store with approximately 20% off . I also own a 126613lb bluesy it`s nice and all but costs 4.5 times more than the Tudor. I appreciate both of them but the bluesy is simply not 5 times better than the Tudor ,the price difference is insane. I`m a big fan of Rolex but it`s simply overpriced. Not to mention the service and hospitality I`ve experienced at Tudor is 100 times better than at Rolex.
How you can say that superlative chronometer is better on Metas accuracy?that is not true
Tolerance of 4 seconds vs 5 seconds. But more importantly- every SC has outperformed every METAS caliber I've ever owned.
@@BruceWilliams i have both my omega NTD is far away more accuracy than my new generation Batman and SD43….
Another could be magnificent Tudor ruined by the faux rivets. Meanwhile the ugly cheaplooking Ranger gets the nice bracelet. I like the blue BB 58 but the rivets and no t-fit ruins it. I will get a Tudor for my collection at some point. Great channel Bruce.
Spec comparisons are kinda pointless, as for half price of a Tudor get a Longines, or half the L0ngines price for a Christopher Ward. Non of these are investments, maybe the Rolex will retain value better, but invest in stocks and shares to make money. So you buy what gives you the feels. If you hearts desire is a Rolex, no amount of Tudors will scratch the itch. I bought a 14060m Sub which is a close match to the Tudor, and have worn both side by side. If you don't mind the snowflakes and branding the Tudor is great. But for me, it had to be Rolex. Neither make financial sense.