Long before I became a watch fanatic, I worked in NYC and would, on occasion, visit Tourneau to get some jewelry, change a watch battery (quartz...eeek!!) or get my wife a birthday or anniversary present (my wife bought me my first decent watch -- a steel-gold Ebel chronograph -- in 1993). Whenever I would have time to stare at watches, I would inevitably (as an uninitiated non-WIS) stare at the Rolex watches (since any non-WIS knows that Rolex is the creme-de-la-creme in watches and that singularly unattainable holy grail...LOL!).
Now back then, I was often told or led to believe by their sales people that if I couldn't afford a Rolex I could always get their "cheaper, lower cost" alternative, which was held out to be Tudor. Ever since then, I never really took Tudor seriously.
So my questions: Is Tudor just a bargain-priced low-cost alternative to Rolex or does it have its own horological merit? Who owns Tudor?