Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Rolex Watch ?

Then there's the real thing.





Vs.

Correct Kingston,
Rolex and Tudor aren't in the same league,,,much less Steinhart.

This was worn every day for several years on construction sites, working on heavy equipment, while building and fabricating all kinds of stuff, saltwater fishing, hunting, etc. It's on it's fifth strap.

Yet Rolex are proud to be associated with Tudor.
So I wonder what Rolex thinks of the Tudors they own, make, sell, warrant and service?

btw: What does the Steinhart lack in horological terms and performance ?

This is where the Rolex twats get tide in a knot...



LOL.....they are all just real dive watches (vs) real dive watches.

but some people like to imagine more than what really is.

I'm wondering now, do you drive a car thats the 'real thing' vs not the real thing?

I'm not going to debate horological fine points with you, obviously your views are already established.

But the reality is: Steinhart makes it's living on copying the overall style of iconic pieces, and certainly doesn't add any innovative designs or features to the market. Every model they make the concept is stolen from IWC/Rolex/Omega, all the way down to the dial and hand style. Not 1 watch isn't fashioned after a SD, SMP, or Mark x,,,if a knock-off is what you're after, you could do worse.

Their fit and finish is lacking, quality of bezel and case are sub-par, clasp and bracelet are clunky. For the price point a reasonable watch aimed at the WIS world, for the average consumer has never heard of them. Considering they are a new company, with no history or classic designs of their own...they managed to find a hole in Germany to produce fairly priced watch pieces, for a moderately manufactured product.

At the end of the day they have no history, designs, or refinement as a maker.

Tudor is not a fake anything. They are owned by Rolex and they started as Rolex designed and manufactured bodies with off the shelf Swiss movements like ETA. Now, they are offering in house movements as well. The Tudor Pelagos is probably the finest tool watch there is today, especially when you consider the price.

In many respects bad mouthing Tudor while extolling Rolex is like a guy with a Weatherby Vanguard looking down his nose at a guy with a Howa. Rolex of course, goes a lot higher into the high end stuff than Tudor, but in comparable watches Tudor is a good as a Rolex.

And why would you compare a $400 Steinhart with a $4,000.00 Tudor.

I survived with a pager or mobile phone for my thirty year career. Sometimes in pretty heavy construction. I own three watches, all received as gifts for a job well done. They reside in a drawer in my bedroom.

Now that you're retired you shouldn't GAF what time it is.

I know two guys with Rolexs, my $250 Seiko dive watch keeps better time.

For those who appreciate fine timepieces, I believe Rolex is the best of the bunch. Their economies of scale have enabled them to refine the movements over the years to astonishing accuracy and utility for a mechanical watch.

They are not a typical investment and I wouldn't buy them as such. But they will last more than a lifetime.

They require periodic maintenance, like any mechanism to stay at their best.
As fine watches go, pricing is middle of the pack. One could go eith Patek Phillipe, for example, but IMHO one does not obtain a better movement.

This is a fun thread.
Yes, you should buy a watch if you LIKE it.
I just buy stainless Seikos and Citizens with the RR railroad approved face. If they keep time, I keep them. Right now I have three that are two-second a month accurate, which is what I LIKE.

Yep, its easy to just makes claims you can't back up.

has Rolex, IWC ,Omega, registered a claim that Steinhart have 'stolen' anything?



The pre64 M70 is an icon with cult following, loved & praised by many, yet it copied the M98 so much
that MauserWerke won a patent court battle and damages....so why the grudge against things like Steinhart or Tudor?



For a swiss automatic tool watch there is sufficient existing innovation & practical functional design,
-What does Rolex offer that makes it a better tool watch?

in time keeping Steinhart can often surpasss the Rolex COSC.....so whats not to like and appreciate?



you will comment on cosmetics like final finish of a $500 watch vs $8000 Submariner , but not on its horology
or functional performance...you are true to form for a Rolex 'bling' tosser.

Yeh , but some people feel obligated to justify their wannabe pretentious existence.

Rlx dive and Tudor dive watches are made under the same roof- dials and cases are made by the same workers, designers, and machines
that make Rolex cases and dials.



Because both brands can have a ETA elaborate grade movement, 500m depth rating , TI case, sapphire, etc
nobody seems game to explain whats so technically inferior about Steinhart.

https://www.watchitallabout.com/steinhart-ocean-titanium-500-premium-watch-review/

I noticed Rolex only guarantee their Tudor line for 2 years international. Their flagship line for 5 years. Curious as to why if its the same watch?

Funny Rolex story.

When my Wife first went to work for Armour Meats back in the early 1990's, one of her jobs as a budget analyst was to identify potential fraud and report it up the chain of command. One line item that she looked into was called "The President's Award" which she assumed was an annual award given to an employee by the President of Armour for outstanding performance. When it came time to spend the budgeted money for the award, she was surprised when the administrative assistant for the president of Armour turned in an $8,000 receipt for a Rolex watch. When she looked into it, she found that the "President's Award" was just a backdoor way for the president to supplement his income without anyone noticing.

it's not the same watch. Traditionally, Tudor has been Rolex' budget line.

Starman seems to be truly miffed that he doesn't own a real Rolex.

Exactly, "my Ford Focus is every bit as good as your BMW X6, you wasted your money"..."why do the hot chicks always pick ugly dudes ?"