Technical differences between Rolex 32xx and Tudor MT?

[007Sub]

Originally Posted by GradeV

I don’t know how long it takes to develop a new movement. It has been argued that the pressure to move to 70hr power reserve arose after other manufactures began to routinely have increased power reserves in their standard mass produced movements.

There are some differences in the 32XX (eg thinner-walled and less serviceable mainspring barrel, steps take to reduce mass of certain components) that are quite different from what went previously and to me raise the possibility of a change in philosophy away from the robustness, reliability and serviceability I associate with Rolex.

But I just don’t know.

This is 100% accurate.

Unfortunately, the efforts to increase power reserve necessitate a reduction in mass of components and therefore mean thinner, lighter wheels/palet stones etc which isn't always the best option for longevity. The days of "real" watchmaking where things are serviced rather than replaced are moving to the past because these companies are more concerned with profit than anything. It costs more to pay a competent watchmaker to repoise a balance wheel, adjust a hairspring, or service an original barrel complete than it does to replace quickly replace parts by less skilled technicians. And while tolerances in newer manufacturing procedures yield parts that are phenomenally consistent, the question of whether or not they will last as long as past movements like the 15XX through 31XX remains to be seen. My sense is that they will not.

To the original post the OP asked, I think that both modern tudor and rolex movements will be similarly accurate. The differences will likely come down to longevity based on things like the quality of (and number of) bushings, jewels, polishing of pivots, hardness of metals etc. In these respects Rolex is generally second to none.

The fact that Tudor's practice is to simply replace the movement altogether rather than service the one originally in the watch does say something about how much they value that individual movement. While it may indeed be most cost effective for them, it does seem wasteful. Moreover, they specifically designed the regulating screws on the MT movements to be turned with a microstella type wrench that diferes from all the Rolex screws so no independents can safely regulate those movements. IMO this is just sad and shameful as it presents a way to continue putting down independent watchmakers and force Tudor owners into one decision only and that is to bring their watch to Tudor for servicing. Frankly even though the MT movements are better than the ETA's i miss the ETA being in there. Of course Im biased