Reply With QuoteNice read, thanks for posting
I came across this article from the British Horological Institute written by a watchmaker. It compares the Rolex staple workhorse movement, the 3135, with it's newer incarnation the 3235.
It's a balanced comparison from an obviously informed person with a surprising conclusion.
I think if we take the writer's opinions on board then it asks questions about which direction watch manufacturers are going in. For me one of the appeals of mechanical watches is it's hypothetical longevity in a world of disposable items. But will future Rolex watches be similarly impractical and uneconomic to repair decades from now when parts are unavailable and the 'consumable' parts wear out? In fairness this is the case with many older movements now anyway even if they are 'repairable'. Maybe these are further steps to deter non-accredited independents but this is nothing new. I don't think the caseback and microstella nuts can be handled without special tools anyway, for example.
Link here
Nice read, thanks for posting
Thanks for sharing this
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
An interesting article. Thanks for posting.
Brilliant, thanks for posting the article.
I love these technical movement breakdowns as they give an extra level of knowledge to the untrained enthusiast.
Excellent article, thanks for sharing!
A good read; however the conclusion doesn't seem to follow from the analysis. He presents no evidence that the newer movement is less tough or durable. Rather, it's just a bit different. In truth, both are superb. In terms of precision and durability, Rolex are surely the King?
I haven't found a brand that makes more precise movements, which just keep on working.
In a similar vein, I currently own 3 x 3135 powered models, ageing from 1 - 7 years old and each of them is accurate to 1 sec per day on the wrist. Whilst I can see the advantages of extended power reserves, especially if you take a watch off on a Friday evening and put it back on for work on Monday, the power reserve doesnt bother me as I tend to rotate my collection and wear any watch for a week to a month at a time.
Excellent article, I’d never heard of friction- fit balance staffs before.
Overall I agree with his conclusions although there’s an element of subjective judgement at play! What troubles me about the new movement is the thin barrel wall and the non- replacable rotor bearing, I agree with the criticism he’s made of these items. I strongly favour ball- race rotor bearings over a plain bush, they generally last longer, but I don’t understand the logic in not making it a replaceable part!
Designing the escapement to have less inertia and potentially less friction is going to help the powr reserve by allowing a weaker (thinner) mainspring to be used, thus enabling a longer spring to be fitted and hence produce a longer power reserve, I get that, but what happens when the lubrication breaks down on the escape wheel teeth and pallet stones? Does the increase in drag/friction rise proportionally more than with the more conventional design? If that’s the case I’d expect the amplitude to fall and the watch to need servicing more frequently.
The writer is claiming that the new movement will be more reliant on replacement parts in the future than the 3135, which is not in the customer’s best interests. On the face of it I’m bound to agree, although I’m surprised at his claims regarding the longevity of mainspring barrels. in my experience they deteriorate sgnificantly over a 5-10 year period and should always be replaced if a replacement is cheap and readily available. I was taught this and my own experience bears it out, so maybe the new movement isn’t at such a disadvantage in having a mainspring/ barrel that’s essentially non- servicable.
The current trend towards developing longer power reserve is another case of solving a problem that didn’t really exist, I see the advantages as marginal. I’m sure many will disagree; there are very few quantifiable parameters in a watch and many people will look for some numbers to latch onto. Water Resistance is another one,bigger has to be better in many people’s eyes even if it’s not truly relevent to them.
Paul
Last edited by walkerwek1958; 30th October 2018 at 16:42.
Interesting read, I wonder is a comparison against other movements has been done against other manufacturers
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using TZ-UK mobile app
This was extremely interesting, thank you for sharing.
He clearly didn't pay too much attention during his Rolex training on the 3235... Completely omitting all the improvements to the geartrain, hand sync, setting mechanism, date mechanism, removal of all wire springs etc...
Anyway, the point about replacing mainsprings is completely moot. It's rolex were talking here, not a handmade Daniels or Journe or something. They make millions of barrels a year, and yes maybe 1 out of 99 needs adjustment, but rolex supply special tools and training telling you to always do these checks before putting a new barrel complete in... it's really a breeze.
Replacing and old mainspring and polishing bridles is nonsensical, claims to be in the interest of the customer but of course its the opposite, its so cheapskate watchies can improve their margins. It reduces service time for the customer thus costing more in the long run. Every time you open and close a barrel you reduce the friction fit, I've come across plenty of Rolexs where the barrel has popped open in the movement, causing significant wear before the customer realises and then causes replacing of bridges etc... $$$
Rolex barrels are cheap, and they have done the math, the time it takes to disassemble, clean, adjust, reassemble is as costly in labour as a new barrel, but with significantly worse results.
The rotor construction is debatable, but we will see in the long run, my guess is the monobloc rotor is so stiff that it wont cause wear on bridges easily like the 31 did, even when bearing is slightly worn.
As for the size, the 3235 is the same size as the 3135 and this is most likely so the movement will fit perfectly in with the old cases etc, a bigger movement wouldve meant a bigger submariner, DJ36, etc.
The escape wheel teeth are longer but also have an angle to them, which surely has some purpose.... It would require some significant engineering skills to judge, which rolex has droves of....
Interesting for sure. Thanks for sharing.
Interesting comments from a pro........and certainly more in line with my own thinking regarding mainspring replacement. It doesn`t surprise me that there are several improvements that the guy failed to mention.
I`ve worked on old Longines watches where the barrel and spring are supposed to be replaced as one, they're stamped in French telling you not to open them, but when a new barrel hasn`t been available for years you've got no choice if a new mainspring's required!
Interesting article. I must admit I read the introduction and the conclusion but quickly scanned the technical section as frankly, I don’t really understand!
I have one of each and the only noticeable difference to the non expert is the new movement is more accurate (1 sec per day v 2 sec per day) and the power reserve is more (nice, but probably not really needed). I guess the 3135 could quite easily be regulated to the same accuracy too. Both are very stable movements (consistent in terms of accuracy).
I quite like having the new movement and I guess I’d be reluctant to buy a new Rolex with the outgoing movement now. I guess time will tell in terms of longevity but I’d be surprised if a new Rolex movement turned out to be inferior to a previous (though excellent in its own right) version.
I expect (and hope for) a very long wait to find out either way!! I’m happy with both in the meantime.
Originally Posted by D4RW1N
Have you noticed the noise from the 3235 bearing rotor at all? Its my main gripe with it, as the rotor axle 3135 is completely silent, which I dig.
Well I hadn’t..... but now I have to find out!!!
I think most ball-race rotor bearings make some noise if you listen hard enough!
Well you are right....
Just been sat in a quiet room waving watches round my head.... Thankfullly no sane person entered the room to witness this😀😀
The 3135 (sub) I failed to muster any noticeable sound.
The 3235 (dj) does have an audible rotor movement under fairly vigorous shaking!
For reference, I also did the “shake test” on an Eta base watch and a sellita. They both make a more “industrial” sound than the 3235!! Probably to be expected.
I have to say I have never noticed this before on anything other than the sellita (which is a Christopher ward) and I’m glad to report it doesn’t really bother me.
That said, the silence of the 3135 does logically suggest less friction. Does that follow, and if so can it lead to less longevity of a movement that makes more noise?
Very interesting. Thanks to Paul for some astute observations.
Great read, many thanks.
Thanks very much for sharing this interesting article.
I found the article very interesting, and the replies thus far even more so.
Lovely to read a thread like this - it's what the forum is really about.
Subscribing to read later
Couldn’t have said this better myself.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A very interesting window into an area very new to me. I'm sure I'm not the only member who would welcome more from the watchmakers among us.
You should try something with a 7750 in it.Well you are right....
Just been sat in a quiet room waving watches round my head.... Thankfullly no sane person entered the room to witness this
The 3135 (sub) I failed to muster any noticeable sound.
The 3235 (dj) does have an audible rotor movement under fairly vigorous shaking!
For reference, I also did the “shake test” on an Eta base watch and a sellita. They both make a more “industrial” sound than the 3235!! Probably to be expected.
I have to say I have never noticed this before on anything other than the sellita (which is a Christopher ward) and I’m glad to report it doesn’t really bother me.
That said, the silence of the 3135 does logically suggest less friction. Does that follow, and if so can it lead to less longevity of a movement that makes more noise?
Love to see the full breakdown and comparison between the two movements.
Also a big fan of Peter Speake-Marin's The Naked Watchmaker breakdowns and interviews - they're well worth a read!
Very interesting read, thanks
Posting Permissions
