Rolex movements/servicing queston

[warrior]

Occasionally, I'll read on various forums of how so and so didn't require a service on his Rolex for 10, 15, 20 years.

Do Rolex movements require less servicing than, say, ETA based watches? I've read that it is simply based on oil and that all oil dries up after 5 years or so....and that parts wil begin to wear out. Regardless of movement or brand.

Are Rolex movements 1) more robust and/or 2) require less lubrication than the ETA movements? Or is this all a myth? Do all mechanical watches, regardless of brand or mechanical movement, have the same basic recommended service intervals?

Please discuss. Thanks....

[ayres]

as for those old tales of massive service intervals, those were slower beat movements... which because of their slower beat, wear more slowly. not so these days.

everything needs basic servicing... i'll leave the rest to others...

[warrior]

Thanks Ayres. Yeah...this is what I would assume. But, I'm always reading about how reliable and robust the Rolex movements are ( I'm certainly not disputing this).

I just want to know (from the sole perspective of having the movement run down, become inaccurate in timekeeping, and require servicing) whether all mechanical watches ( regardless of brand or specific movement) would require the same basic service intervals. I would think so...but I'm not sure. Which is why I asked the question.

Originally Posted by ayres

as for those old tales of massive service intervals, those were slower beat movements... which because of their slower beat, wear more slowly. not so these days.

everything needs basic servicing... i'll leave the rest to others...

[Tools]

I'm sure it's something that could be debated at length..

But, you cannot just say "ETA" movement... ETA makes several different grades of movements, and most of these movements put in various brands are further finished by that manufacturer...

It is likely that Rolex movements are machined and finished to a high degree. This means that parts fit with specific tolerances, burrs are removed, and parameters for straightness, lash, run-out, and others are to a very specific level...

Becoming inaccurate is not the sole reason to "service" your watch.. It is quite possible that the metal parts can wear themselves down to the point of failure and the watch would still keep a reasonable level of accuracy... but then you have damaged the watch to a point that many parts would need repair.. The idea behind regular maintenance is so that you do not get to that point..


Lubrication is essential to maintaining these tolerances and reducing friction and wear so that the parts last for their known/expected lifetime...

So, movements that are finished to the same degree of tolerance and finish would likely last as long as a Rolex movement would last..... but it is something that you likely would not know...

[warrior]

Thanks, Larry! Some good info. So, in your opinion, would a modified chronometer grade eta -2892 a-2 in say, an Omega or Breitling or whatever brand, last as long as a Rolex in theory?

I want to make it very clear that I'm not trying to make this into a brand war debate. This subject of movements, finish, and robustness ( be it ETA or Rolex) is quite interesting to me.

Originally Posted by Tools

I'm sure it's something that could be debated at length..

But, you cannot just say "ETA" movement... ETA makes several different grades of movements, and most of these movements put in various brands are further finished by that manufacturer...

It is likely that Rolex movements are machined and finished to a high degree. This means that parts fit with specific tolerances, burrs are removed, and parameters for straightness, lash, run-out, and others are to a very specific level...

Becoming inaccurate is not the sole reason to "service" your watch.. It is quite possible that the metal parts can wear themselves down to the point of failure and the watch would still keep a reasonable level of accuracy... but then you have damaged the watch to a point that many parts would need repair.. The idea behind regular maintenance is so that you do not get to that point..


Lubrication is essential to maintaining these tolerances and reducing friction and wear so that the parts last for their known/expected lifetime...

So, movements that are finished to the same degree of tolerance and finish would likely last as long as a Rolex movement would last..... but it is something that you likely would not know...

[Tools]

Originally Posted by warrior

Thanks, Larry! Some good info. So, in your opinion, would a modified chronometer grade eta -2892 a-2 in say, an Omega or Breitling or whatever brand, last as long as a Rolex in theory?

I want to make it very clear that I'm not trying to make this into a brand war debate. This subject of movements, finish, and robustness ( be it ETA or Rolex) is quite interesting to me.

Perhaps...... There are differences..

Rolex uses a full balance bridge and larger balance wheel (more mass, better stability), so it will distort less when conditions are less than ideal.. They also use a Breguet over-coil that helps with isochronism, and also, then, keeps the beat at less than ideal conditions over the entire mainspring torque curve.. The free sprung balance also isolates critical parts when others are less than perfect...

So, an argument could be made (or a theory postulated) that a Rolex movement could continue to keep admirable time even if some parts are on the point of failure; whereas, the 2892-2 could/would show poor cadence much sooner.....

[warrior]

Thank you for your thoughts.

Originally Posted by Tools

Perhaps...... There are differences..

Rolex uses a full balance bridge and larger balance wheel (more mass, better stability), so it will distort less when conditions are less than ideal.. They also use a Breguet over-coil that helps with isochronism, and also, then, keeps the beat at less than ideal conditions over the entire mainspring torque curve.. The free sprung balance also isolates critical parts when others are less than perfect...

So, an argument could be made (or a theory postulated) that a Rolex movement could continue to keep admirable time even if some parts are on the point of failure; whereas, the 2892-2 could/would show poor cadence much sooner.....