3185 vs 3186 vs 3187

[jstan9]

Hello TRF members. I have a 3 month-old GMT BLNR Batman, and know it's using a relatively new 3186 movement, itself a refinement of the venerable 3185.

I've always admired the polar Explorer II but think the new 42mm size is too big for my scrawny wrists (my BLNR wear big, and I love it, but I don't want lugs over-hanging my wrist). In ogling the Explorer II rolex site I noted that it used a 3187 movement.

This may be a dumb question, but does anyone know why it wouldn't use the same 3186 as the GMT? Itself using a fairly updated reference? Thanks in advance!

[Etschell]

Per member tools,

"The 3186 and 3187 function identically.

They have different numbers because the base plates and pivots and jewels are all slightly different to accommodate the Paraflex shock system integration.

That means that, although these parts are identical in function, they are not interchangeable."

In lamens terms the 3187 is larger than the 3186 due to case size.

[Pius XIII]

Originally Posted by Etschell

Per member tools,

"The 3186 and 3187 function identically.

They have different numbers because the base plates and pivots and jewels are all slightly different to accommodate the Paraflex shock system integration.

That means that, although these parts are identical in function, they are not interchangeable."

In lamens terms the 3187 is larger than the 3186 due to case size.

Bingo. I think I read somewhere that about 10% of the parts in the 3187 are different to account for the larger movement and case size.

[jstan9]

Originally Posted by Etschell

Per member tools,

"The 3186 and 3187 function identically.

They have different numbers because the base plates and pivots and jewels are all slightly different to accommodate the Paraflex shock system integration.

That means that, although these parts are identical in function, they are not interchangeable."

In lamens terms the 3187 is larger than the 3186 due to case size.

That makes sense, thank you. What confused me was that my first rolex, my 17 year-old 35mm yachtmaster uses the same 2235 caliber (still keeping incredible time after all these years : ) as the 29mm version. So I checked the new 37mm versions of the yachtmaster, and they, too use the same caliber as the 29mm. It made me wonder, if this is so, why wouldn't the 42mm explorer II use the same caliber as all the 40mm GMT's?

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by jstan9

That makes sense, thank you. What confused me was that my first rolex, my 17 year-old 35mm yachtmaster uses the same 2235 caliber (still keeping incredible time after all these years : ) as the 29mm version. So I checked the new 37mm versions of the yachtmaster, and they, too use the same caliber as the 29mm. It made me wonder, if this is so, why wouldn't the 42mm explorer II use the same caliber as all the 40mm GMT's?

Shock system versus no shock system it appears

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Pius XIII]

The 3186 uses the outsourced KIF shock absorber whereas the 3187 uses the in house developed Paraflex shock absorber that is supposed to be up to 50% more resistant to shock than other standard shock absorbers.

[jstan9]

Originally Posted by Pius XIII

The 3186 uses the outsourced KIF shock absorber whereas the 3187 uses the in house developed Paraflex shock absorber that is supposed to be up to 50% more resistant to shock than other standard shock absorbers.

Really interesting. The knowledge on these forums is just incredible. Rolex must be lurking (or they're idiots. And they are not idiots).

That begs the question. Why is my incredible BLNR not using the same standard as the less expensive Explorer II?

And thank you for sharing your expertise.

[toneafficianado]

I have both Blnr and Exp II 42mm. I thought the 3187 was only found in that Explorer and I put it down to it having a GMT hand and being 42mm so I am learning here too.

[Danwealth]

Originally Posted by jstan9

That begs the question. Why is my incredible BLNR not using the same standard as the less expensive Explorer II?

And thank you for sharing your expertise.

GMT II c is a pseudo tool watch, where as Exp II is a real tool watch so it uses a movement with better shocks..lol

It's all marketing gimmicks

My Sub c (no date) has got 3130 movement with KIF shocks where as exp I has 3132 movement with paraflex..

New Airking has got 3131 movement that is antimagnetc..same movement used in milgauss

Now, why cant rolex make sub and explorer antimagnetic when they are tool watches?.. no one knows

Wait until 20xx basel..all the movements will be updated with paraflex shocks, antimagnetic cage & bigger hairspring with 72 or 96 hrs power reserve..standard case size will be 42mm..

[jstan9]

Originally Posted by Danwealth

GMT II c is a pseudo tool watch, where as Exp II is a real tool watch so it uses a movement with better shocks..lol

It's all marketing gimmicks

My Sub c (no date) has got 3130 movement with KIF shocks where as exp I has 3132 movement with paraflex..

New Airking has got 3131 movement that is antimagnetc..same movement used in milgauss

Now, why cant rolex make sub and explorer antimagnetic when they are tool watches?.. no one knows

Wait until 20xx basel..all the movements will be updated with paraflex shocks, antimagnetic cage & bigger hairspring with 72 or 96 hrs power reserve..standard case size will be 42mm..

This also makes sense. Thanks for the insights! I thought it odd not to standardize wherever possible on your *best* but obviously there is a great deal more involved.

[watchwatcher]

Originally Posted by jstan9

That begs the question. Why is my incredible BLNR not using the same standard as the less expensive Explorer II?

There's more to the pricing of a watch than just the movement. For starters, the BLNR not only has a ceramic bezel, but a bi-colored one.

[lenfried29]

lame cuisine bro