Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cylon 
I think having tudor allows rolex more flexibility in terms of marketing. As much as I complain that Rolex is lazy/boring, I also understand their conservatism is due in large part to the fact that they represent the gold standard of luxury watch making to the public at large (for better or worse). Any misstep carries the potential of ruining the brand (a la new coke), so deploying new ideas via the tudor route allows them to take risks, be bold, and test new ideas out without damaging the staid continuity of their established lines.
Just imagine if the pelagos was the updated submariner (minus the snowflake dial marker/hands)????
Tudor can do it precisely because Rolex can't
I get that Tudor allows Rolex more flexibility interms of marketing and reaching out to a lower price point. However, while people are currently pleased with the Pelagos, Tudor has had some designs in the past that were not so great and which didn't garner lots of positive comments.
The Pelagos is a good looking watch for Tudor. However, I don't wish that the Sub C was actually the Pelagos with a Rolex movement, Role dial, and mercedes hands. Overall, I think Rolex did a pretty good job modernizing the Sub with the Sub C. Is it perfect, no. Some people like it, others hate it...no watch can be everything to everyone, but if a large part of their target audience is happy and buying it, then the numbers speak for themselves.
Not a huge fan of the bracelet, so i stuck it on a NATO. standard 36mm, really small, and doesnt have the "rolexrolex" rehaut. Pretty happy with it so far. ![nod[1].gif](http://files.styleforum.net/images/smilies/nod%5B1%5D.gif)
![spam[1].gif](http://files.styleforum.net/images/smilies/spam%5B1%5D.gif)
![icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif](http://files.styleforum.net/images/smilies/icon_gu_b_slayer%5B1%5D.gif){kind=icon}
