![]() |
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
![]() |
#1 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: Sesame Street
Posts: 35
|
Technical differences between Rolex 32xx and Tudor MT?
Putting aside the question of whether the MT is really "manufacture" and the negligibly wider accuracy tolerance, what are the real technical differences?
Genuine question from someone who doesn't understand watchmaking all that well, nor is able to differentiate which Rolex-invented terminology ("Chronergy," "Syloxi," etc.) constitute technical differentiators vs marketing. They both seem to be similar sizes (Oyster Perpetual 36 and Black Bay 36 are same size/thickness/water resistance), the power reserve is supposedly the same at 70, accuracy is better-than-COSC, and production can be automated (these aren't artisan-level movements like Blancpain). Yet it sounds like the Rolex movement has some serious issues that the Tudor does not. So there are obviously some serious technical differences. Just not sure what they are exactly. Did Rolex somehow try and be too clever somewhere while Tudor went a more traditional route? Again, this isn't a "which is better" thread, but rather curiosity about how two movement families that originated (in one way or another) within the same house and share such similar performance specs could have such different reliability outcomes in the wild. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2016
Real Name: Michael
Location: Melbourne, Aust
Watch: Polar 16570
Posts: 1,183
|
Every time you read something about Tudor not being true in-house it’s from someone that doesn’t know kinessi was started by Tudor and is headed up by a Tudor man.
Tudor was first to go to 70 hours and their silicon technology is licensed to them from Rolex. Generally people report Tudor as tracking better accuracy than Rolex. Interestingly now that Tudor is moving to the Master Chronometer standard, they are doing this with no change other than branding to the calibre. If you value the standard then it’s a clear advantage over Rolex. Tactically, it was a smart move from Tudor and tricky one for Rolex. In many ways this was a no win move for Rolex. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 5,619
|
Only thing tricky about Tudor movements is they’re not serviced. Tudor throws in a manufactured movement and remanufactures your movement for someone else. Repairs will be essentially non-existent at 3rd party repair places.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 14
|
Quote:
The most significant difference between the two movements is simply quality of manufacture. Compare the motion works (under the dial) of the two. The Tudor resembles a lowish grade Seiko (nothing against Seiko at all btw), whilst the Rolex is made to a much higher standard, as one would expect with the price difference. The difference is quality is quite evident when looking at the individual components under magnification. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: Sesame Street
Posts: 35
|
Quote:
Is it just a question of being very "simple" (like the Rolex 3100 series was known to be)? Quality/finishing of materials (more low-grade metals, plastics, etc)? Actual assembly quality control? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: UK
Posts: 20
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: Sesame Street
Posts: 35
|
Quote:
For this type of watch, I wouldn't expect anything overly pretty, or serious technical innovation. I'd love to find out that it's basically on par w/a Rolex 3100 series (rather than learn it's little more than a better-regulated version of something like the PRX Powermatic). |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2016
Real Name: Michael
Location: Melbourne, Aust
Watch: Polar 16570
Posts: 1,183
|
Quote:
As am I considering everything done to a Rolex is by a machine. From most forums available online, Tudor takes the better accuracy cudos. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2016
Real Name: Michael
Location: Melbourne, Aust
Watch: Polar 16570
Posts: 1,183
|
Quote:
Everything I've ever read about MT calibres would pit them at a higher technical and performance level than 31xx calibres. 32xx... I don't know, but there's lots of posts about issues with the 32xx and none really with any of the MT calibres. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | |||
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Real Name: D'OH!
Location: Kentucky
Watch: Rolex-1 Tudor-3
Posts: 35,980
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
dP
__________________
TRF Member# 1668 Bass Player in TRF "AFTER DARK" Bar & NightClub Band ![]() Commander-in-Chief of The Nylon Nation ![]() The Crown & Shield Club Honorary Member of P-Club |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: UK
Posts: 20
|
Quote:
I guess we should try to pull this thread back to the original topic of technical differences between the movements. The most in-depth article that I have read on the subject is the one by SJX. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2016
Real Name: Michael
Location: Melbourne, Aust
Watch: Polar 16570
Posts: 1,183
|
Quote:
Had a brief look for that but unsussessful. Can you reference? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Real Name: PaulG
Location: Georgia
Posts: 41,433
|
Technical differences between Rolex 32xx and Tudor MT?
3235 vs MT5612
Both have ≈ 70 hour power reserve, free sprung balance, but different technology hairsprings and shock absorption systems. Silicon hairpring in the 5612 vs Parachrom Blue in the 3235. Rolex is using the Paraflex shock absorber, and Tudor is using Incabloc. Now the 5612 movement has a larger diameter. Neither will win a beauty prize. 5612: Diameter: 31.8mm Vibrations Per Hour: 28,800 bph (4 Hz) Power Reserve: 70 hours Jewels: 26 Shock System: Incabloc Hairspring: Silicon, non-magnetic Oscillator: Variable inertia balance, micro-adjustment by screw 3235: Diameter: 28.5mm Jewels: 31 Power Reserve: 70 hours Vibrations Per Hour: 28,800 bph (4Hz) Balance: Paramagnetic Oscillator Escapement: Chronergy (with thinner pallet stones and double escape wheel teeth) Shock System: Paraflex Hairspring: Parachrom Blue Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
__________________
Does anyone really know what time it is? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2016
Real Name: Michael
Location: Melbourne, Aust
Watch: Polar 16570
Posts: 1,183
|
Quote:
I thought that Tudor used kif rather than incabloc? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro Last edited by Tools; 12 July 2024 at 03:52 AM.. Reason: quote modified for clarity |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 | |
TRF Moderator & 2024 DATE-JUST41 Patron
Join Date: May 2007
Real Name: Larry
Location: Mojave Desert
Watch: GMT's
Posts: 43,344
|
Quote:
Brietling, Tag, and Cartier, as well as a few others now use Kenissi, with Cartier investing 20% in Kenissi (with Tudor/Rolex) to ensure future availability. Here is a release from Tudor/Kenissi. “In 2010 the Tudor watch brand launched an ambitious project to develop its industrial production capacity for mechanical movements. To this end, the brand brought together a group of experts and presented an initial caliber manufactured by Tudor at Baselworld in 2015, in variations to equip two different watches. The following year the Genevan watch brand created the Kenissi company to oversee the development and production of its movements and, in parallel, offer its technical expertise in the field of movements to third-party brands. The first industrial partnership was then forged with Breitling. As its business developed, in 2018 Kenissi then formed an industrial alliance with Chanel, supplying the caliber for its new J12. Today Kenissi offers a wide range of self-winding movements derived from the TUDOR Manufacture calibers. These customizable, high-performance, highly robust movements are entirely developed and produced in Switzerland. Founded in 2016, based in Le Locle. ‘Kenissi’ comes from the ancient Greek Kinesis meaning in movement, a reference to its activity and ambitions. Kenissi’s product range comprises two families of customizable, high-performance self-winding movements – large and medium-size – which can incorporate numerous functions such as a calendar, power reserve indicator, or GMT function.”
__________________
(Chill ... It's just a watch Forum.....) NAWCC Member |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: UK
Posts: 20
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: UK
Posts: 20
|
I thought Rolex used Aegler before buying them and bringing them in house in 2004? The 32XX series are the first movements produced after this process I think?
Last edited by GradeV; 12 July 2024 at 06:36 AM.. Reason: Tidied up quoted section; added detail |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 | |
TRF Moderator & 2024 DATE-JUST41 Patron
Join Date: May 2007
Real Name: Larry
Location: Mojave Desert
Watch: GMT's
Posts: 43,344
|
Quote:
When the Borer family bowed out in 2004, Rolex absorbed it in its entirety. Rolex recently also (bought) Bucherer Company when the old man retired to keep that relationship intact too. To say that a movement company that only provided movements to Rolex, at Rolex facilities using Rolex engineers, while simultaneously being a member of the Rolex Board and company and being named Manufacture des Montres Rolex SA, was not "in-house" until 2004 ignores the true situation.
__________________
(Chill ... It's just a watch Forum.....) NAWCC Member |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: UK
Posts: 20
|
Quote:
I would be keen to know what actually happened in 2004 - were there redundancies, changes in leadership, changes in the engineering / design teams? How much did Aegler change in that moment, and does it have any bearing on the way in which the 32XX was developed (and how it diverged from previous movements)? The thing is, bringing “in-house” proper would have brought Aegler under complete and total control with no outside voices. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 | |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Real Name: PaulG
Location: Georgia
Posts: 41,433
|
Quote:
Nope - see photos 5612 ![]() Incabloc (has a lyre shape) ![]() KIF (3 contact points) ![]() Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
__________________
Does anyone really know what time it is? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#21 |
TRF Moderator & 2024 DATE-JUST41 Patron
Join Date: May 2007
Real Name: Larry
Location: Mojave Desert
Watch: GMT's
Posts: 43,344
|
Rolex stopped using KIF back 2005 when they developed their own Paraflex.
Tudor historically used ETA w/Incabloc, ETA used this in their high-end movement ebauches. Tudor continues with Incabloc SA, an independent manufacturer, for now.
__________________
(Chill ... It's just a watch Forum.....) NAWCC Member |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#22 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: Sesame Street
Posts: 35
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#23 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: UK
Posts: 20
|
Quote:
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#24 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: Sesame Street
Posts: 35
|
Quote:
The analogy that seems most relevant is cars. When I think of car companies that have changed hands many times, the changes always happen with the next new generation. Land Rover. Volvo. Jaguar. Each iteration is most characteristic of the previous owner. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#25 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,963
|
Quote:
Gone are the days where the Mainspring is replaced and lubed accordingly in the old barrel. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#26 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: Sesame Street
Posts: 35
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#27 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,963
|
Quote:
It does demonstrate that there are ongoing improvements that may be implemented on older movements(old but not obsolete) even if the improvements are due to processes, lubricants or metalurgy adding up to end user benefits. Sometimes in life it doesn't pay to ask for more or look a gift horse in the mouth or question the motives of those providing it if it works out to be of benefit. But i'll happily take a couple of extra hours of power reserve to around 50 hrs as reported if the rest of the movement remains a solid and reliable performer. ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#28 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: Sesame Street
Posts: 35
|
Quote:
Is a watch with a PR that had gone down to 60hrs back up to 70, or was a watch with a steady PR of 70 now up to 75? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#29 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,963
|
Quote:
Regretably i was referring to the 31xx movements previously discussed which have gone from a 48 hr original specification to a slightly improved 50 hrs with a simple Spring barrel assembly change as part of routine servicing at RSCs. It's an example of what's possible under that principal of swaping out sub assemblies or even entire assemblies with sufficiently strict QC underpinings ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#30 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: Sesame Street
Posts: 35
|
Quote:
![]() Yes, incremental improvements are always nice, and if they could, for example, keep a fundamentally flawed design working properly in five-year intervals (vs. one or two-years) that would also satisfy most. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.