114060 owner now has to admit - the news Subs are superior

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Gab27

There is a flaw with some of the movements which results in the seconds gear pivot wearing at an accelerated rate, resulting in the watch losing time (and, eventually, not working at all.)

When this issue pops up, there is usually a delay before sufficient wear occurs to cause issues (i.e., low amplitude, poor timekeeping), usually after a few months to a few years of ownership. We do not know how many of the movements are impacted by this, and there are some owners of early 3200 series movements who have not reported any issues at all, and it has also been described as "common". So the odds of it occurring are simply unknown. (Opinions on these odds can vary substantially.)

Presently, as far as we know, the solution is to overhaul the movement and lubricate, which doesn't seem to permanently fix the issue, as it's not unheard of for it to happen multiple times to the same watch. I say, "as far as we know," because there would likely be a time delay between when Rolex fixes the issue permanently and when we are aware of it.

Hopefully Rolex will permanently rectify this soon.

Aside from everything Bas from RSC says about the movement, to quote fellow member and watchmaker wm82:

"The post for the calendar driving wheel is another big issue, its always worn and looks rusted up, from dried up lubrication.

We get several 32XXs in each week, they are usually 2-3 years old. I'm avoiding this movement until we get some official word from Rolex what the issues are, cause it does have many issues."

https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...6&postcount=19

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by FTX I

Of course. To be honest after almost ten years on the forum this is the first time I read about a choice between timekeeping and aesthetics. Watches are not ornaments so I always thought both aspects came together. You don't buy a watch when you don't like how it looks. Omg this watch looks so bad I love it. That doesn't make any sense. However, we always decided based on aesthetics but timekeeping/movement reliability was there in a 'ceteris paribus' sort of way. All movements were equally good and reliable, not only the ones made by Rolex but when compared to Omega etc. Now apparently there's a choice to be made between aesthetics and timekeeping and this is unheard of until the 32xx problems hit the fan. Big trouble in my humble opinion.

You and I see this in a different way and that’s ok.

I rotate watches every few days so a few seconds either way is not even a consideration for a guy like me. I can appreciate why for you and others it’s not acceptable.

Yes, I’ll take aesthetics over timekeeping.

I also recently bought the 321 Speedmaster which is not exactly known for “accuracy” but a hell of a watch nonetheless and aesthetically exactly what I was looking for with good enough timekeeping for me

[MRB11]

Originally Posted by mgsooner

Had a chance to visit my local AD today for the first time since they got their wonderful “display models.” Tried on the new date Sub. Wears a lot better than my 114060 does. Wider bracelet didn’t bother me at all, and didn’t really find there to be a huge difference in the clasp. Also tried on the black/blue GMT on oyster and really liked it. So much so I registered my interest for one. If my guy comes through for me I’ll probably just move the 114060 out. Was very excited to get it back in 2019 but if I’m being honest with myself I like the fit of the GMTs (and new Subs) much better. Anyway, just one goof’s opinion.

Hey it’s funny I felt the exact opposite. I thought there was a noticeable difference in the clasp. I loved the wider bracelet but I also love the boxier case of the 114060 so the new lugs are smaller to accommodate that. That being said the overall finish is identical in my opinion so not so sure about any superiority. However, I’m certain that no one outside of a watch forum would know or care. But I would not say you were a goof it’s just horses for courses isn’t it. I prefer something that is no longer available so would not trade an 114060 for anything. But that’s me.

[MRB11]

Originally Posted by D007

Sounds like a lot of people have their specific reasons for prefering one over the other (114060 vs 124060) such as the movement, lugs, bracelet thickness, clasp. But for me, the one reason I can’t bring myself to prefer the 11 over the 12 is the minute hand. On the 11 the minute hand is just a tad bit too short for my liking and on the 124060 they perfected it. Silly, but thats the differentiating factor for me.

Now I’d never noticed that and just seen that now on my 114060. Not like the old Explorers but yes quite significant. Doesn’t bother me in the slightest but I don’t think it’s silly if it is a problem for you. Nice you see that as an upgrade and now have a perfect watch.

[Bobcat Sig]

I had the chance to compare both the 114060 and the 124060 last week. Truthfully, I fondled a 16610LN next to the 124060.

When I started this quest for a SubC; I thought I'd convinced myself that an 11-series would be my jam with the super case and maxi dial. Then, after watching several YouTube videos, I flipped to the 12-series, thinking that the updated case and movement was the ticket.

Then I saw both in person and I flipped to the 11-series. Granted, the super case was a Sub Date. Nonetheless, I really dug the bigger-wearing super case and fatter lugs. The 11-series seemed to have a crisper, brighter dial. That may be some of the cyclops refracting light into the daily or the lack of an AR coating.

In any case, I now hunt for an 11-series.

[Filipão]

Superior?

Nah... not even close.

[Bobcat Sig]

Originally Posted by Filipão

Superior?

Nah... not even close.

I'm talking only about ceramic subs. You two-liner owners can duke it out in the vintage sub-forum.

[Filipão]

Originally Posted by Bobcat Sig

I'm talking only about ceramic subs. You two-liner owners can duke it out in the vintage sub-forum.

I'll bite this one too:

40mm rules!

[Krash]

I like the newer one better too, but not enough to lose any sleep over it. I don’t feel compelled to trade in my 114060 for a newer one. I’m very satisfied with what I have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[robinmgb]

Definitely inferior in terms of the movement though! Unreliable and problematic 32 series can't compare to the ultra reliable 3135

[Bobcat Sig]

Originally Posted by robinmgb

Definitely inferior in terms of the movement though! Unreliable and problematic 32 series can't compare to the ultra reliable 3135

I'd be lying if I said that wasn't a consideration. A 70-hour power reserve is attractive, but not enough to justify the high gray market prices currently or the uncertainty around the movement reliability.

[John1083]

Originally Posted by brandrea

Don't get me started

Yes there's a 32xx movement thread here that will document how horrible they are

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Horrible

The 32xx movement thread is informative, but far from quantifiable on a large scale. Empirical data has a purpose, and without documented production levels and specific number of problematic serviced movements, the thread is nothing but informative. Feel free to also break it down by 3230 and 3235 tiers as well.

Point being, if the OP or anyone expresses interest in a model for their own unique interests, squashing it with terms like “horrible” is in poor taste.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[John1083]

Originally Posted by Andad

Good grief John.
Don’t be foolhardy.

After a little research you will find that the long term issue with the 124060’s 3230 movement might not just be ‘2 seconds per diem’.

I am solidly in the mechanical camp over aesthetics.

Introduced in 2020, the 3230 movement simply cannot be identified as a movement with long term issues.

My research is on my wrist, and if it has issues I’ll happily send it to RSC. It’s really that simple. No need to fear monger those interested in a particular model.

Obviously I am in the aesthetic camp, but to each their own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA_LEC]

Originally Posted by mgsooner

Oh, forgot to mention - I also tried on the new Explorer 36. Let me just say, there's absolutely no way I would forego my 214270 for the 36.

I fully agree with that.