- 15/7/22
- 50
- 3
- 0
Son, don't be rude. Not to me, not anyone or you can bugger off. It IS an inane question, it's stupid and implies that Rolex are in some way superior to Tudor simply because they cost more in the gen.
Yes, I agreed it was indeed inane BUT, as I already told you, the question you cited was NOT the question I asked, so LEARN TO READ and not put up straw men.
Furthermore, they do not simply cost more they (let's be honest) have more prestige, when did you last see a TUDOR clock at Wimbledon? Thus, and back to my original question, in the world of Gen watches you can argue that Rolex are overpriced and Tudor have the looks. So for less than half the price (in many cases) they are a good option, but that is not the case with the high end reps, they are the Same price. Thus I do not understand the motivation so I simply asked WHY and, amongst the avalanche of invective, I have had a few civil answers.
Last edited: