Tudor watches

[mrgrumpy]

Being a sentimental old fool I am inclined to buy a watch with her name on it for a friend whose name is Tudor. What should I look for? New or vintage/used? Electronic or manual? Any advice gratefully received, thank you.

 

[Talbot]

What style watch does your friend prefer?

 

[Edward]

Not cheap, if not as pricey as their Rolex siblings. Worth having a look at their website, especially the configuration tool - https://www.tudorwatch.com/en/watches/configurator . What are your friend's tastes? If she likes the dive watch type, the Black Bay 58 is gorgeous - I want one of those myself, one day. If that's the model you're looking at, the original-size 39mm version can be a better option for those with slimmer wrists than the 42. The 39mm is the original size from the first model in the 50s, 42mm a concession to modern tastes which prefer a larger watch for men anyhow. The 39mm is closer what would be considered a woman's watch in a modern sense. Myself, I'd only consider mechanical-auto. I'm unconvinced of the value of spending big money on a quartz movement, but that's to personal taste. I don't think Tudor currently do anything other than auto, though?

I can't claim to have researched them extensively, just the BB58, but if those are typical, they seem to hold their price pretty well used, so unless you have access to a dealer with a well-maintained and serviced used piece, new might be worth the difference.

Lots of watch guys round here with much more expert knowledge than me, so - hopefully they'll chime in.

 

[mrgrumpy]

Thank you. My tendency is towards mechanical auto, otherwise it is just another quartz watch with an expensive sticker, and probably new as there is a good local dealer. A smaller dress design I think will be preferred.

 

[Turnip]

If I’d have to pick a specific Tudor trademark I’d look for a 5612 movement and derivates if three-handed, that’s the Tudor in-house manufacture movement.
For a Chrono I’d look out for one with a 5813 movement, a Breitling B01 in-house manufacture chrono movement used by Tudor which is top notch in any respect.
All others will still feature more or less pimped ETA movements, which I wouldn’t prefer.

Only my two cents, just my taste.

 

[handymike]

I dont know a lot about watches, but I really like the vintage Oyster Prince with the large rose. I know it’s not a very practical choice.

I believe they are 34mm or 36mm.

 

[robrinay]

I dont know a lot about watches, but I really like the vintage Oyster Prince with the large rose. I know it’s not a very practical choice.
View attachment 287874
I believe they are 34mm or 36mm.

I’m with you, the vintage Tudors are much better looking in my opinion - here’s mine for another example.

 

[Edward]

They do seem to do more reissues than their sister brand, which is more about 'new'.

 

[Seb Lucas]

Tudor are known as the affordable Rolex and in years gone by they were just a solid Swiss watch with Rolex style casing. I personally prefer the ETA movements as they are a venerable workhorse while in house movements are harder to get parts for and more expensive and trouble to maintain.

Problem with modern Tudor to my eye is their designs are ugly. There's not a single one I would wear. Even the Black Bay 36 ( a more traditional look, with an amazing stainless braclet) has a bloody ugly black stem on the crown making it stick out and look awful.

The older Ranger model is nice (a Tudor version of the Rolex Explorer). They are fairly small and suitable for a female.

 

[Twit]

It depends on your friends style, vintage Tudors and modern Tudors are very different. As Tudor has re-positioned it has set itself as a slightly edgier and cheaper member of the Rolex family.

I personally like the new Black Bay range but they are big watches. Vintage ones are certainly smaller given their age but very nice. I have a modern GMT, which I wear on a custom made cordovan bund strap; I really like it and its probably my most worn watch. It feels substantial but aside from the design cues being from the past, albeit the 70s, there is no way it could be seen as a vintage style watch.

 

[Ernest P Shackleton]

I used to work for a guy who knew a guy. In the watch biz with connections. They couldn't pay me much, so once a year they would want to buy me something big. I could never let them do it. If I'm not willing to spend X amount of money on item Y, then I can't let anyone else do it. They offered to buy me a Tudor Sub. Thank you, but no thanks. They were around $650 at the time. I don't care to wear watches, jewelry, etc. I would have never worn the thing anyway. But I do have my days I'm sorry I don't have it to sell. I cannot believe how much they've gone up. Tudor had no respect back then. I always thought they were sharp and a secret to those only who knew watches. I like that element in anything.

I think the Sub is the classic choice. Hardy. Sporty. Classy. Simple. Timeless.

 

[Jasonindenver]

Tudors are great watches. The modern ones are hit or miss on styling but they are excellent quality timepieces. You friend needs to tell younwhat he/she likes.

 

[mrgrumpy]

Tudors are great watches. The modern ones are hit or miss on styling but they are excellent quality timepieces. You friend needs to tell younwhat he/she likes.

I am not taking that chance, we go together!

 

[mrgrumpy]

Thank you to everyone for your help and advice.

 

[Aerielle Max]

Tudors are great watches but how are guys dealing with this new development about Covid wih the vaccine?

 

[Edward]

I personally like the new Black Bay range but they are big watches. Vintage ones are certainly smaller given their age but very nice. I have a modern GMT, which I wear on a custom made cordovan bund strap; I really like it and its probably my most worn watch. It feels substantial but aside from the design cues being from the past, albeit the 70s, there is no way it could be seen as a vintage style watch.

The model I have half an eye on is the Black Bay 58, which is the original sizing - 39mm. Doesn't sound much compared to the 42mm norm of the recent versions, but it makes a surprising difference when you see them together. Also got my eye on one of the Rado Captain Cook watches - Rado's version of the Submariner, in effect, but with a few subtle design changes that to my eye make it more than "only" a copy. They come in a range of sizes, from a huge 45 down to the original 37mm, which is the one I fancy.

Tudor had no respect back then. I always thought they were sharp and a secret to those only who knew watches. I like that element in anything.

Yes, part of the attraction of the brand to me is that they are less "obvious" than a Rolex. I know there are watch snobs who see them as a poor man's Rolex, but where the Tudor really wins out to me is that they are much closer in look to the original vintage models than Rolex tend to do nowadays. If I had big money to spend on watches today, I'd pick up a bronze Black Bay 58, a steel 37mm Rado Captain Cook Automatic, and a Hamilton Ventura - one of the automatic models, not quartz. Big money in my mind (I'd keep a 'beater' as well for sure), but still watches I'd wear regularly and enjoy. In years gone by I'd never have considered spending that much on a timepiece, but now I've reached a stage in my middle forties where I know exactly what I like and I'd rather spend a bit more for a "lifetime" purchase than something that will need replaced in a decade or less. (If that sounds fatalistic, I've already started telling people to make the most of me while I'm still here! ).

 

[handymike]

The Bronze is very nice, and I also like the Green Harrod’s one.

 

[mrgrumpy]

My friend is tiny, so even a 39mm case is going to look like a highlander’s targe on her wrist; it will have to be one of the smallest ladies’ dress models, which one being just a matter of her preference. I will have to be very disciplined not to buy one for myself.