no Rolex doesn’t own Tudor

Post Reply
User avatar
Mark1
Founding Member & Master of Time
Posts: 8256
Joined: December 19th 2009, 11:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Oregon
Contact:

Re: no Rolex doesn’t own Tudor

Post by Mark1 » February 16th 2021, 6:32pm

conjurer wrote:
February 16th 2021, 6:17pm
I'm interested in Dr. Smells take on this. I would trust him over this yahoo.
Yes, I'm not sure I am buying what the dude with the beanie baby backdrop is selling. Besides, anyone who spells Mark with a c is automatically suspect.
See you're WRONG I don't work at all, I'm a Democrat. The immortal Horse Feathers as spoken to Chucky Ninetoes.
User avatar
smellody
Founding Member & Master of Time
Posts: 7125
Joined: December 18th 2009, 11:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: OR
Contact:

Re: no Rolex doesn’t own Tudor

Post by smellody » February 16th 2021, 7:30pm

He is annoying. True on the Hans Wilsdorf Foundation owning both. I hate the analogy but to say Ford and Lincoln aren't related is about the same.

These Swiss are smart.

He is wrong about the year of Tudor's US return. It was 2013 ....

The reason Tudor left the US market is that idiot golfer Tiger Woods (yes, that druggie that cries all the time and won't sign autographs for orphans and such because his daddy told him not to.) Anyhow.... Tiger took his endorsement for Tudor and said thank you and then took an endorsement from Tag Heuer. I think they left the US because they lost their sales campaign.

Have to hit submit. This guy is rambling on in the background.
   Image
User avatar
JAS1125
Watchlord WIS
Posts: 2968
Joined: January 29th 2013, 11:00pm
Contact:

Re: no Rolex doesn’t own Tudor

Post by JAS1125 » February 17th 2021, 6:18am

Mark1 wrote:
February 16th 2021, 6:32pm
conjurer wrote:
February 16th 2021, 6:17pm
I'm interested in Dr. Smells take on this. I would trust him over this yahoo.
Yes, I'm not sure I am buying what the dude with the beanie baby backdrop is selling.
Indeed...and who describes a watch as "adorable"?
"Old age and treachery will always beat youth and exuberance"

David Mamet
Pubbie
Senior Member & WIS
Posts: 713
Joined: September 18th 2017, 5:35am
Facebook ID: 0
Contact:

Re: no Rolex doesn’t own Tudor

Post by Pubbie » February 17th 2021, 2:56pm

smellody wrote:
February 16th 2021, 7:30pm
He is annoying. True on the Hans Wilsdorf Foundation owning both. I hate the analogy but to say Ford and Lincoln aren't related is about the same.

These Swiss are smart.

He is wrong about the year of Tudor's US return. It was 2013 ....

The reason Tudor left the US market is that idiot golfer Tiger Woods (yes, that druggie that cries all the time and won't sign autographs for orphans and such because his daddy told him not to.) Anyhow.... Tiger took his endorsement for Tudor and said thank you and then took an endorsement from Tag Heuer. I think they left the US because they lost their sales campaign.
They also lost it in the UK, where Tiger Woods didn't feature prominently in advertising copy and very few watches were branded Tiger. (Not the case with TAG-Heuer; by then he was a global superstar.)

Today, Tiger-branded or otherwise, Prince Date chronos go for £6k from a fragrant pomaded dealer wearing one white glove saying words like "fine". It certainly is a "fine". Back in 2006, when the money was flowing freely and Tudor closed up shop in the UK, they were being remaindered for £900. But the post-Oyster era meant jangly lo-cost bracelets, and anyone spending six grand on one now is only doing so because he's got a gun to his head, or he thinks he can make money on the deal. And given the number of idiots out there....
Post Reply

Return to “Rolex & Tudor Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest