It’s about time we got these two side-by-side, and now that time is here. The crux of this debate is simply going to revolve around the following: this GMT-Master II costs £6,800, the Tudor £2,790. The Rolex is almost two-and-a-half times the price. But it’s also the older sibling, the original, without which Tudor wouldn’t exist at all. So, the question is simply this: if you can afford either, which one should you pick?

I’ll get right to it: this is perhaps the cleverest watch I have ever seen. No exaggeration. There are more complicated, more technically advanced, more expensive watches out there, but for sheer engineering brilliance, this one takes the crown. Welcome to the H. Moser & Cie. Endeavour Perpetual Calendar.

At Baselworld earlier this year, Rolex finally put us out of our misery by releasing a stainless steel version of the ceramic red and blue GMT-Master II, a colour combination previously only available on the white gold 116719BLRO for a rather expensive £25,600. But now that flagship model has been watered down into a stainless steel watch for the masses, how will Rolex differentiate the most expensive GMT-Masters from the rest?

If you’ve got a lump sum of around £5,000 burning a hole in your pocket, and you’re looking to get yourself your first watch, you’re probably thinking about some kind of Rolex, or Omega, or perhaps a Breitling. £5,000 doesn’t get you that far any more—you’ll get one decent watch, and that’s about it. Or is it?