Sunday Morning Showdown: Tudor 1926 Luna Vs. Longines Flagship Heritage Moonphase
It’s Sunday morning, so it’s time for a cup of coffee and an epic showdown between two similar timepieces. After last week’s battle of affordable divers, we now turn to a less popular genre — the classic moonphase watch. Last week, Tudor surprised us with its new 1926 Luna. The latest creation certainly had people talking. That’s why we want to put it up against the Longines Flagship Heritage Moonphase. It’s been part of the brand’s collection since 2023, and last year, Longines expanded the lineup with three new models. Can Longines beat Tudor? Let’s find out.
When Tudor announced the new 1926 Luna, some things stood out immediately. For starters, it is the first Tudor watch with a moonphase complication. Second, the watch is predominantly targeted at the Asian markets, as Thomas explained in his intro article. That is emphasized by Tudor ambassador Jay Chou’s involvement in developing the champagne-dial version. That said, the trio of 1926 Luna models is available worldwide, so we picked it for our Sunday Morning Showdown series. The €2,630 Tudor goes up against the Longines Flagship Heritage Moonphase that debuted in 2023. This is a slightly more classic moonphase watch that perfectly fits the Longines Heritage collection. At €3,300, it is a bit more expensive than the Tudor. Will that be a deciding factor? Let’s find out.
Last week, on Sunday Morning Showdown…
Before we get into this week’s battle, let’s briefly go over last week’s results. In that showdown, the brand-new Baltic Aquascaphe MK2 took on the Lorier Neptune. In the end, the Aquascaphe MK2 took the win with a convincing 66% of the votes, leaving the Neptune with only 34%. The comments showed a far more balanced range of opinions, though. I would even go as far as saying that they showed a slight preference for the Lorier. In the end, though, it is not about the people who comment but, rather, the total amount of votes. And, as always, the numbers don’t lie. They show a clear win for the Baltic. Let’s find out whether this week’s results will be equally decisive. Over to Mike and Jorg.
Jorg: Tudor 1926 Luna
Let me start by saying that this week’s Sunday Morning Showdown is far out of my comfort zone. You will not find either one of these watches on my wrist anytime soon, other than for professional purposes. A watch with a moonphase display is simply not for me. I like the complication as part of a complicated calendar watch because it often brings symmetry to the classical four-register layout. But as a standalone complication or when combined with a date indicator, it doesn’t draw me in. It simply doesn’t offer any daily practicality that interests me.
So, when the Tudor 1926 Luna was unveiled, I wasn’t necessarily too impressed. I love Tudor a lot, but my affection for the brand is predominantly focused on the Black Bay and Pelagos series. Those lines are also where the heart of Tudor is in terms of its ultra-recognizable style. The Black Bay Pro, Pelagos 39, and the Pelagos FXD GMT are just some of the names on my bigger list of favorite models. The Black Bay Pro is also still high on my list of wants. But a 1926 or a Royal is not what makes Tudor so special for me.
The 1926 Luna has a relevance that the Longines lacks
So, why would I pick the Tudor 1926 Luna over the Longines Flagship Heritage Moonphase? That’s a good question. When I first saw the 1926 Luna, I found the design rather nondescript. It’s likable, sure, but fairly generic. It made me ask, “Apart from the logo, what makes this a Tudor?” In all honesty, the recognizable elements that I appreciate are not there. I can hear you thinking, “This doesn’t make your argument any stronger, Jorg.” Hold on for a second, though. While I could relate my argument to my love for the brand, I decided to focus on the two watches as standalone timepieces.
When I did that, I knew that the Tudor was my favorite of the two. The 1926 Luna has something that the Flagship Heritage Moonphase lacks, and that is modern-day relevance. If there is one thing that amplifies the irrelevance of a moonphase display, it’s combining it with a super-traditional design, as Longines has done. It makes the Flagship Heritage Moonphase worse for me. I know that many traditionalists will passionately disagree, but I will elaborate on this anyway.
There is a potential there that Tudor should explore
If you squint and look at the Tudor, you will find similarities with the Nomos Club Campus series. The round case, the use of large numerals, and especially the modern, colorful dials create a kinship to the popular series of Nomos sport watches. While the latter brand does a better job at making them more distinct, I do appreciate Tudor’s efforts to do something different with this new 1926 Luna. Looking at these three new variants next to the regular 1926 models, I realized something interesting: the Tudor designers have chosen a champagne gold dial with black markers as well as its reverse, a black-dial version with gold-colored markers.
These two versions reveal a hint of the thing that Nomos has excelled at over the past few years. I recently reviewed the brilliant Club Sport Neomatik Worldtimer and explained how Nomos is showing that choosing less obvious colors and exploring new combinations has made the brand a frontrunner in the industry in terms of color use. While Tudor is usually far more conservative in its choice of colors, we have recently seen a change with pink and turquoise dials. That’s where I see potential for this series to become better than it currently is.
The Longines feels ancient to me
With the Longines Flagship Heritage Moonphase, I don’t feel any potential for it to become better. You either like its Jaeger-LeCoultre Moonphase Ultra Thin-infused design, or you don’t. It ticks all the classic boxes, and that’s where it stops. That is fine for the people who prefer it, but for me, it puts a rather ancient complication in an even more ancient surrounding. Sure, that’s how it is supposed to be for many, but I like to see it differently.
On top of that, Tudor did a much better job of creating a slimmer, more wearable watch. As Lex explained, with a 12.4mm profile, the Longines is too thick to be a nice, classically styled moonphase watch. The Tudor designers did a much better job of keeping the 1926 Luna slim. Its 10.1mm thickness and the 39mm diameter make for a far more comfortable watch on the wrist. Add the seven-row bracelet for more everyday practicality, and the choice becomes easy.
Why this is a no-brainer
Do I adore what Tudor has done with the new 1926? Not particularly. As I said, the design is too nondescript, and the modern display of the moonphase lacks the definition one would need to read it properly. As you will understand, I don’t mind that so much since the complication is not what draws me to these two watches. However, with the Tudor, at least there is a potential to keep moving forward and improve, whereas the Longines is equally nondescript but also stuck in the past indefinitely. As a result, I’d much prefer to spend €2,630 on the Tudor 1926 Luna and save €670 compared to the Longines. But let me know what your thoughts are, Mike.
Mike: Longines Flagship Heritage Moonphase
Jorg kicked off his discussion about the Tudor 1926 Luna with a discourse about why moonphase watches are not his bag. Well, that makes two of us because the lunar display is one of my least favorite complications. I simply don’t find it useful. So, why are two non-fans of these watches stumping for them in today’s showdown? Well, in my view, it allows us to see these watches without blinders or any bias. Based on that, I’m thankful to be supporting the Longines Flagship Heritage Moonphase.
A classier-looking watch
Look, I generally love what Tudor does, but the 1926 Luna seems like an afterthought. I find it boring and somewhat uninspiring, feeling like merely a checked box for the brand. It’s as if the folks working there thought they needed to have this complication in the lineup and created a basic entry. By comparison, the Longines is a classy reference. In fact, if I were in the market for a watch like this, the Flagship Heritage Moonphase would be on my list.
For starters, the dial composition is much cleaner and feels like a complete design. With its classy silver dial and subtle, polished, and applied indexes, it’s a watch that could be mistaken for something far more expensive. The other nicely designed detail is the date display. On the Longines, it is integrated seamlessly around the moonphase oculus.
Eye-catching details
Another beautiful feature is the colorful, emblazoned case back. It harks back to vintage ’50s models from the brand and is nice to see instead of a sapphire display. Otherwise, the 38.5mm stainless steel case is nicely finished with angled and chamfered lugs. The only negative is the slightly chunky 12.4mm profile.
An intriguing movement
The Longines Flagship Heritage Moonphase uses the L899.5, an automatic movement based on the ETA A31.L91. With a frequency of 25,200vph, it has 72 hours of power reserve. It also has a quick-set function for the moonphase display and date. It’s a fine caliber, but it is modular, which means that the complications sit high on the base movement. This is the culprit behind the slightly thick case and crystal combination.
A more compelling choice
Put bluntly, the Longines Flagship Heritage Moonphase is a better-looking watch than the Tudor 1926 Luna. It feels like it’s an important part of the brand’s lineup instead of a placeholder. If its only foible is a bit too much space between the crystal and the case back, then it’s a concern I’d be able to live with. However, I’m only allowed one vote. Will you opt for the brand-new Tudor or the classic Longines? Cast your vote, and let us know why you chose the way you did.
