ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
17 July 2013, 08:07 PM | #1 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: WA
Watch: All the Oysters
Posts: 811
|
Watchmakers, what do YOU prefer: vintage or modern Rolex movements?
Dear watchmakers and movement fanatics,
I have long followed across the forums with considerable interest the debates over vintage v. modern Rolex watches (and their attendant calibers...15XX vs 31XX, merits of slow beat v. fast beat, quality of materials and workmanship in yesteryear vs. now, etc) But the opinion I'm most interested in is that of the men and women--people like Rik D. Bob R., or Vanessa--who work on Rolex watches, and see many of them, from the old stalwart classics to the modern references, cross their workbench. And moreover, see them from the inside out and can thus formulate some pretty strong views about what makes the best machine. Now, I understand that there are technical tradeoffs in movement design, with no perfect solution--but all things being equal, when talking about non-chronograph movements used or produced by Rolex over the past few decades, do you prefer the older designs, or newer? Take the benchmark Rolex calibers of the 60's, 70's and early 80's (1570/1575) compared to the current (3135 based) family: which has earned top kudos in your eyes, for all around use and long-term excellence, assuming the owner takes care to attend to servicing as the years go by. To put it another way: if given the choice between a cherry perfectly maintained NIB-condition classic Rolex sport model from the acrylic slow-beat era (say, a late series 1680 Submariner/1675 GMT/1016 Explorer, or whatever your favorite model may be) vs the modern counterpart----for use as a daily wearer, not collecting or valuation---which do you favor? (or, what is on your wrist now?) And, if you say the 15XX series, do you foresee--as of 2013, that most components will remain available enough to ensure service (at least through independent channels) for years to come? |
17 July 2013, 10:36 PM | #2 |
TechXpert
Join Date: Jun 2009
Real Name: Rik Dietel
Location: Seminole Fla
Watch: 5512 s/s Sub
Posts: 1,818
|
Well there in lies the trouble if parts were still available for all calibres back to the bubbleback era they're all fine movements and a joy to work on. However at the present moment I most like working on the late model calibres lot less guess work and they usually set up and time out great. Rikki
__________________
Century 21 Certified watchmaker Omega Service Provider Trained Omega OWME Certified. Rolex Parts Account Holder. |
18 July 2013, 08:20 PM | #3 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: WA
Watch: All the Oysters
Posts: 811
|
Thanks for your feedback, Rik! So, would it be fair to say that Rolex's current calibers are probably their most evolved (and best designed) yet?
Is it just nostalgia and a historic track record that makes the older calibers so well regarded, even in the face of apparent improvements? Again, thanks for sharing your views. |
19 July 2013, 01:13 AM | #4 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Real Name: Greg
Location: USA
Watch: Milsub
Posts: 1,635
|
Great question here Adam!
__________________
@true_patina @true.dome |
19 July 2013, 01:31 PM | #5 |
TechXpert
Join Date: Jun 2009
Real Name: Rik Dietel
Location: Seminole Fla
Watch: 5512 s/s Sub
Posts: 1,818
|
I'm working on a Gubelin pocket watch from 1917 and it is without a doubt the thinnest pw from that era I have ever worked on. I believe it to be a one off in 18k white gold and was owned by one of the founders of Twentieth Century Fox, his great grandson now owns it. It was put away many years ago and was pretty stiff with old oils so through the cleaning machine 3 times finally got it running great. So where am I going with this good question just rambling long day to wired to go to sleep anyway it's nice to work on cool stuff new or old. Rikki
__________________
Century 21 Certified watchmaker Omega Service Provider Trained Omega OWME Certified. Rolex Parts Account Holder. |
27 July 2013, 05:40 AM | #6 |
TechXpert
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rolex world
Watch: SS/W Skydweller
Posts: 527
|
I was drawn to watchmaking as a profession because I love watches and I am very fortunate I had an aptitude for working on them and understanding how they work.
The more modern calibres are easier to work on and to a degree provide less of a challenge for a watchmaker, the older calibres tend to be more of a challenge especially if the last "watchmaker" to work on the movement was less than skilled. To be honest it really depends on what is in front of you on a given day. I love working on a Sky Dweller as much as on a 1030. |
7 August 2013, 08:16 PM | #7 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: WA
Watch: All the Oysters
Posts: 811
|
Great comments, Ironstark---much appreciated!
Rik's comments are also (of course) fantastic, and greatly helpful. Comparing the chronometer-certified 15XX calibers (1570, etc) to the modern 31's (3130/3135, etc) do you watchmakers feel the modern calibers offer genuine "upgrades" for the user concerned with longevity and hassle-free operation, or are the older still "better" if one is willing to find a watchmaker who understands the quirks they possess? I have discussed the matter with those who feel the modern is superior (largely due to ease of service issues, and some technical upgrades), and those who feel the older were better---that is, better materials, more hand finishing, more likely to keep "going and going" (slower beat rate, parts fully hardened, more hand finishing, etc) and in addition to that, I suppose the great 15XX range does have time on its side---that is, its hard to beat 40+ years of operation with many old movements properly cared for still going strong---but then again, Rolex has to have learned some things in the ensuing decades, which surely must reflect in the current 31XX series. Right? I would love to hear more on the matter, as you gents are willing to share. Best, Adam |
13 May 2015, 04:02 AM | #8 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 961
|
Resurrecting an old topic, but always current... any watchmaker would like to comment further?
Cheers, G. |
13 May 2015, 01:42 PM | #9 |
TechXpert & 2016 Patron
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Mx
Posts: 1,572
|
I haven't read the other comments but I prefer the new movements because they generally don't show as much abuse from either unskilled "watchmakers" or the owner... the general lack of service intervals have ruined so many of the movements. They can still run okay after a service, but the current owners' expectations of accuracy are generally unrealistic.
__________________
Member# 5731 Instagram: @vanessa.cw21 Watch my Rolex repair video: https://youtu.be/jDnaotCTpTA |
10 March 2019, 03:44 AM | #10 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2019
Real Name: LtCol R
Location: Mtns-NM-MT
Watch: 1680Red-551214060M
Posts: 262
|
Thanks to our first rate CW 21 watchmakers: Vanessa & Rik.
This may be a resurrected topic, but its pertinence is ageless. As the original owner of a 1680 red Submariner, the knowledge gained in first hand observation of a 1570 movement over 48 years is amazing. Four original crystals were purchased with the watch and it was serviced 5 times with specific instructions to replace only internal springs or gaskets. No polishing of case or the original 9315 bracelet. It goes with testimony that the early 5512-5513-1680 ref Rolex Submariners were the toughest most durable watches of the era. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.