Technical differences between Rolex 32xx and Tudor MT?

[Poodlopogus]

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.

[watchmavan]

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

[douglasf13]

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.

[Patto]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

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.

This is correct. Although I'm sure servicing is possible at 3rd party places, parts availability will be a major issue.

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.

[Poodlopogus]

Originally Posted by Patto

This is correct. Although I'm sure servicing is possible at 3rd party places, parts availability will be a major issue.

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.

That's an interesting observation, what do you mean exactly?

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?

[GradeV]

Originally Posted by Patto

The most significant difference between the two movements is simply quality of manufacture.

Originally Posted by Poodlopogus

That's an interesting observation, what do you mean exactly?

I am curious too as to what is meant here - I am guessing form/finishing rather than function/performance?

[Poodlopogus]

Originally Posted by GradeV

I am curious too as to what is meant here - I am guessing form/finishing rather than function/performance?

I figured as much, based on the specs (accuracy, PR). But wasn't sure what aspect of that.

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).

[watchmavan]

Originally Posted by GradeV

I am curious too as to what is meant here - I am guessing form/finishing rather than function/performance?

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

[watchmavan]

Originally Posted by Poodlopogus

I figured as much, based on the specs (accuracy, PR). But wasn't sure what aspect of that.

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).

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

[Dan Pierce]

Originally Posted by Poodlopogus

That's an interesting observation, what do you mean exactly?

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?

Originally Posted by GradeV

I am curious too as to what is meant here - I am guessing form/finishing rather than function/performance?

Originally Posted by Poodlopogus

I figured as much, based on the specs (accuracy, PR). But wasn't sure what aspect of that.

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).

There are no low grade metals on certified Swiss chronometer or META movements. Neither Rolex or Tudor movements are much to look at, they are all about the performance.
dP

[GradeV]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

There are no low grade metals on certified Swiss chronometer or META movements. Neither Rolex or Tudor movements are much to look at, they are all about the performance.
dP

Thanks.

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.

[watchmavan]

Originally Posted by GradeV

Thanks.

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.

Had a brief look for that but unsussessful. Can you reference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[77T]

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

[watchmavan]

Originally Posted by [emoji[emoji[emoji638

Rolex is using the Paraflex shock absorber, and Tudor is using Incabloc.

Now the. . .movement has a larger diameter. Neither will win a beauty prize.


Shock System: Incabloc
Hairspring: Silicon, non-magnetic
Oscillator: Variable inertia balance, micro-adjustment by screw


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

I thought that Tudor used kif rather than incabloc?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Tools]

Originally Posted by watchmavan

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.

. . .

Tudor developed and owns Kenissi and manufacturers them in the same Tudor building. You can't get any more "in-house" than that. Make no mistake, the engineers and designers of Tudor movements are from the same stable as Rolex uses - they are the same company.

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.”

[GradeV]

Originally Posted by watchmavan

Had a brief look for that but unsussessful. Can you reference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

https://watchesbysjx.com/2021/05/rol...-analysis.html

[GradeV]

Originally Posted by Tools

Tudor developed and owns Kenissi and manufacturers them in the same Tudor building. You can't get any more "in-house" than that. Make no mistake, the engineers and designers of Tudor movements are from the same stable as Rolex uses - they are the same company.

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?

[Tools]

Originally Posted by GradeV

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?

In 1919 Aegler became a board member on Rolex Board of Directors. Aegler made movements for Gruen and Rolex for years, then, in 1936 agreed to make movements exclusively for Rolex while still owned by the Borne/Aegler families. The name was changed at this 1936 agreement to Manufacture des Montres Rolex SA

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.

[GradeV]

Originally Posted by Tools

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.

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.

[77T]

Originally Posted by watchmavan

I thought that Tudor used kif rather than incabloc?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Nope - see photos

5612



Incabloc (has a lyre shape)



KIF (3 contact points)



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Tools]

Originally Posted by watchmavan

I thought that Tudor used kif rather than incabloc?

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.

[Poodlopogus]

Originally Posted by GradeV

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.

I doubt much changed in the moment. There's always a lag with post-acquisition changes. Was the 32xx the first movement family whose initial development (i.e. all the R&D) began post-2004?

[GradeV]

Originally Posted by Poodlopogus

I doubt much changed in the moment. There's always a lag with post-acquisition changes. Was the 32xx the first movement family whose initial development (i.e. all the R&D) began post-2004?

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.

[Poodlopogus]

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.

My opinion is that little changes in the manufacturing of current product lines when such integrations/absorptions happen. However, it's when R&D begins on something new that changes in philosophy become apparent.

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.

[Dirt]

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.

We also need to be mindful of the fact that Rolex has moved to replacing the whole Mainspring and Barrel as standard practice at service time. It's reported that it has yielded an increase in power reserve which suggests it has some modification.
Gone are the days where the Mainspring is replaced and lubed accordingly in the old barrel.

[Poodlopogus]

Originally Posted by Dirt

We also need to be mindful of the fact that Rolex has moved to replacing the whole Mainspring and Barrel as standard practice at service time. It's reported that it has yielded an increase in power reserve which suggests it has some modification.
Gone are the days where the Mainspring is replaced and lubed accordingly in the old barrel.

Increased PR over brand new or over pre-service? If the former, sure. If the latter, that just suggests that the mainspring is wearing out too quickly.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Poodlopogus

Increased PR over brand new or over pre-service? If the former, sure. If the latter, that just suggests that the mainspring is wearing out too quickly.

I don't think it necessarily suggests anything.
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.

[Poodlopogus]

Originally Posted by Dirt

I don't think it necessarily suggests anything.
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.

To clarify, my question was about which of the following was happening:

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?

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Poodlopogus

To clarify, my question was about which of the following was happening:

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?

With reference to the power reserve.
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

[Poodlopogus]

Originally Posted by Dirt

With reference to the power reserve.
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

Ah, I gotcha . Yea, not unlike how the PR on the 22xx was extended not long ago (not sure if that had to do with the introduction of silicon spring or something else).

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.