Why No 3132 in Current SubC?

[vertigo s2r]

I tried searching but couldn't really find the answer. I've read speculation of it being a bit larger thus requiring an internal case redesign.

Anyone have any ideas on why they aren't using the newer movement?

Thanks!

[~JJ]

Not really following... The 3132 was designed for the 39mm explorer case.

[vertigo s2r]

Originally Posted by ~JJ

Not really following... The 3132 was designed for the 39mm explorer case.

My understanding is that a 3132 is a 3130 with the Paraflex shock absorbers. The 3130 was used in the 36mm Explorer and is still being used in the SubC as well so it can't be a size thing can it?

The SubC Date uses the 3135 which from my understanding is a 3130 with a date complication.

[sleddog]

The Submariner 114060 uses the 3130, and the Submariner 116610 uses the 3135.....
This is unchanged for many years!!

[Wesley Crusher]

The Explorer needs something to call its own. The 3132 is just that. The same goes for the Explorer 2 and the 3187 movement vs the 3186 found in the GMTIIc

[TudorBeast]

^agree it's part of the appeal for the Explorer line. More for the watch nerds IMO.

[sleddog]

The 3132 is, IMO, the future of non-date movements and although introduced only in the Explorer 114270 now, give it a year or two and I believe it will become the standard on all non-date cased models.
I really don't think fitment into the Subc case is the issue. Most likely just Rolex using up all the 3130 movements/build parts in inventory....After all, the really only difference between the 3130 and the 3132 is the Paraflex shock system...

[vertigo s2r]

Originally Posted by Wesley Crusher

The Explorer needs something to call its own. The 3132 is just that. The same goes for the Explorer 2 and the 3187 movement vs the 3186 found in the GMTIIc

I figured that was the case I just didn't want to believe that Rolex would do that.

In theory the Paraflex shocks *should* be better at least Rolex is advertising it as such. If all other things are equal they are according to their own marketing sticking an inferior product into a watch for sake of something marketing/profit related... Well I guess that doesn't surprise me.

I just wish they were better than that.

[vertigo s2r]

Originally Posted by sleddog

The 3132 is, IMO, the future of non-date movements and although introduced only in the Explorer 114270 now, give it a year or two and I believe it will become the standard on all non-date cased models.
I really don't think fitment into the Subc case is the issue. Most likely just Rolex using up all the 3130 movements/build parts in inventory....After all, the really only difference between the 3130 and the 3132 is the Paraflex shock system...

That makes a lot of sense, I hope it's just a matter of using up the 3130s and making the change over.

I know Rolex moves slow but I'm having reservations about pulling the trigger on a 114060 if next year at Basel they change the movement and file down the lugs a bit for the 100 year anniversary.

...While I'm dreamin' maybe they can have a big crown version without the guards.

[Wesley Crusher]

Originally Posted by vertigo s2r

I figured that was the case I just didn't want to believe that Rolex would do that.

In theory the Paraflex shocks *should* be better at least Rolex is advertising it as such. If all other things are equal they are according to their own marketing sticking an inferior product into a watch for sake of something marketing/profit related... Well I guess that doesn't surprise me.

I just wish they were better than that.

I don't see it like that. Every watch has its purpose. It's not a matter of being lazy or anything else. One could ask why the GMT Master has a rotating bezel and the Explorer II does not. I am glad that each Rolex has its own distinct features. That is what makes each watch special in its own way.

[Wesley Crusher]

Originally Posted by vertigo s2r

I know Rolex moves slow but I'm having reservations about pulling the trigger on a 114060 if next year at Basel they change the movement and file down the lugs a bit for the 100 year anniversary.

Keep dreaming.

[vertigo s2r]

Originally Posted by Wesley Crusher

I don't see it like that. Every watch has its purpose. It's not a matter of being lazy or anything else. One could ask why the GMT Master has a rotating bezel and the Explorer II does not. I am glad that each Rolex has its own distinct features. That is what makes each watch special in its own way.

I see your point regarding making each Rolex distinct. However, the Explorer II doesn't have a rotating bezel because that's suppose to be a rugged 24hr clock not a second time zone ...you know for when you're not at your desk but in a cave for a week and don't know if it's day or night. Though, it can still be used to track a second time zone, or as a compass.

Originally Posted by Wesley Crusher

Keep dreaming.

I know, right?!

[Vincent65]

coz it has a 3135 - awesome

[padi56]

All a cal 3132 is nothing more than a 3130 with a parachrom and paraflex shock system all the mens line except the chrono are all based on the cal 3135.Now that was introduced in 1988 just add complications to that moment like no date, date, day date or GMT.Yes there have been a few mods like the GMT 3185/6/7 larger base plates in-house escapements parts etc but completely new movements most certainly not.

[Wesley Crusher]

Originally Posted by vertigo s2r

I see your point regarding making each Rolex distinct. However, the Explorer II doesn't have a rotating bezel because that's suppose to be a rugged 24hr clock not a second time zone ...you know for when you're not at your desk but in a cave for a week and don't know if it's day or night. Though, it can still be used to track a second time zone, or as a compass.



I know, right?!

Yes, you're right. Maybe that wasn't the best example, but I think you understand my point. In reality, is the 3132 so much better than the 3130? No, probably not. Still, it is a more "rugged" movement that is designed for explorers. It's nice to think about.

I really would be surprised if Rolex started using the 3132 in the SubC. It would really take away from the Explorer.

[vertigo s2r]

Originally Posted by Wesley Crusher

Yes, you're right. Maybe that wasn't the best example, but I think you understand my point. In reality, is the 3132 so much better than the 3130? No, probably not. Still, it is a more "rugged" movement that is designed for explorers. It's nice to think about.

I really would be surprised if Rolex started using the 3132 in the SubC. It would really take away from the Explorer.

So my takeaway here is since Rolex is in the business of making money, they obviously need to sell watches. Since the Explorer of today is not even the same watch Sir Edmund Hillary wore to base camp and since he never summited wearing the Rolex Explorer but instead a Smiths. Rolex needs to incentivize the Explorer line and indoing so is actively keeping the "improved" movemend out of the other non date watches.

Sounds about right?

[SeaDweller50]

Rolex probably started the Steve McQueen rumour. Lol.

[Wesley Crusher]

Originally Posted by vertigo s2r

So my takeaway here is since Rolex is in the business of making money, they obviously need to sell watches. Since the Explorer of today is not even the same watch Sir Edmund Hillary wore to base camp and since he never summited wearing the Rolex Explorer but instead a Smiths. Rolex needs to incentivize the Explorer line and indoing so is actively keeping the "improved" movemend out of the other non date watches.

Sounds about right?

I don't think so. I think Rolex uses the 3132 and 3137 in the Explorer line to incentivize the watch, yes, but not for sale purposes (if that's what you meant?). Some models are better sellers than others. Compared to some other models (DateJust, Sub), I don't think the Explorer has ever been that great of a seller. It's a particular model aimed for a specific group of people.

We can also look at the 3131 used in the Milgauss. Besides being surrounded by the metal cage, it also uses non-ferrous metals. Can't Rolex implement that into the 3130 and 3132? I'm sure they could, but they don't. I guess Rolex could make a "super movement" (let's say 3133) that combines the benefits of the 3131 and 3132 and use it in the Explorer, Milgauss and Sub, but don't you think that would take away from the charm of each watch?