3185 vs 3186

[MrCowboy99]

let's just agree it's a "different" movement. Improved, better, worse, etc is yet to be deterined as time will tell that.

The technical differences are highligthed in above posts, but keep in mind, why would Rolex stop putting 3185s in the current models and change the model number if it didn't accomplish one or more of the things below?

1. Lower Cost
2. Make the movement better
3. Free up dependence on outside suppliers - (which is a completely different discussion)

You decide...

[BigHat]

Originally Posted by padi56

Quite true but I am 100% sure its not going to be more accurate or better than the well proven 3185.Or any other Rolex movement over the last few decades.All Rolex movements tested have to comply to the same COSC -4+6 a day. Wearing habits will bring slight daily deviations thats a fact of mechanical watches.I have a Cal 1520 powered Rolex that I have checked and not COSC tested running consistently + 1 second a day.But myself not anal about exact timekeeping. As long as any mechanical watch performs to or near the COSC standard what more could anyone ask more from any mechanical watch.

Thanks for your posts. As I read through the thread and the misstatements (.5 secs per day etc) I hoped someone would.

So what's next? An assertion about the mythical powers of 904L?

[BigHat]

Originally Posted by MrCowboy99

let's just agree it's a "different" movement. Improved, better, worse, etc is yet to be deterined as time will tell that.

The difference is highligthed in above posts, but keep in mind, why would Rolex stop putting 3185s in the current models and change the model number if it didn't accomplish one of two things or both.

1. Lower Cost
2. Make the movement better

You decide...

Not true. If you decided you wanted to control all facets of your supply chain you'd probably opt for any acceptable mainspring. Personally, I think it's a fine spring but nothing magical. As has been said A THOUSAND times before, no significant difference has been shown. My Sub w/o is as good a timekeeper as my GMT-IIC w/one. Of course, regulation probably is a much bigger factor than the spring.

Nice edit to your post.

[MrCowboy99]

Originally Posted by BigHat

An assertion about the mythical powers of 904L?

Chics love 904L...

[karmatp]

Originally Posted by MrCowboy99

let's just agree it's a "different" movement. Improved, better, worse, etc is yet to be deterined as time will tell that.

The technical differences are highligthed in above posts, but keep in mind, why would Rolex stop putting 3185s in the current models and change the model number if it didn't accomplish one or more of the things below?

1. Lower Cost
2. Make the movement better
3. Free up dependence on outside suppliers - (which is a completely different discussion)

You decide...

Yannis, please read the highlighted section and you will know why Rolex spend the money to develop their own hairspring. It was the only part they still outsourced for on the 3185. So now they spend all this money to develop it right, well now they must try to convince us that it is better so they can get their investment back. Marketing 101, simple as that, I am blown away that people but into this stuff. Both of my GMT II's keep time to +1/+2 seconds a day, if people think they will get 100% perfection with the new hairspring, they are seriously mistaken.

[MrCowboy99]

Originally Posted by BigHat

Not true. If you decided you wanted to control all facets of your supply chain you'd probably opt for any acceptable mainspring. Personally, I think it's a fine spring but nothing magical. As has been said A THOUSAND times before, no significant difference has been shown. My Sub w/o is as good a timekeeper as my GMT-IIC w/one. Of course, regulation probably is a much bigger factor than the spring.

Nice edit to your post.

You are to quick for my old fingers!!!

Bottomline it is different as it has a new number. Time will tell the answer to better, worse or same. BTW, I have both!

[padi56]

Originally Posted by yannis7777

There has been an ongoing argument about this 3185 vs 3186. It is getting tiring to argue about it too. I think we should all agree that the 3186 is an improved movement. It might be a minor one but still this does not mean it is not an improvement.
Rolex took time and spent money on patents in order to improve the 3185 and made the 3186. If there was no point i don't see they would be so dumb to go ahead with the plan.

Here is an article about the parachrom spring:
ROLEX has developed and patented a new hairspring called PARACHROM. This hairspring is made of a niobium, zirconium and oxygen alloy. It has been used for the Cosmograph Daytona starting from 2000.

In 2005 a blue-coloured version was introduced for the new GMT Master II and the Cosmograph Daytona. It has an even better performance as regards to long-term stability. This blue version has also been patented.

The hairspring and balance form an oscillator, the regulating organ of the watch. This oscillator is the guardian of time. The precision of the watch is determined by the regularity of its oscillations. The requirements of this regularity are very great since measuring the time with a precision of 1 second per d ay is like measuring a distance of 1 km to within 1 cm.

To guarantee this extreme precision, the torque must be as constant as possible regardless of the temperature to which the watch is submitted. It is for this reason that only a few, very special materials can be used for the hairspring.

Commonly used alloys have an iron - nickel - chromium base. These alloys are ferromagnetic and so have two major drawbacks: they make the hairspring susceptible to magnetic fields and to shocks.

ROLEX has developed a new family of alloys with a niobium - zirconium - oxygen base know as PARACHROM, which is up to ten times less susceptible to shocks and absolutely unaffected by magnetic fields.

The registered name comes form the fact that the alloy is paramagnetic and that it is coloured (CHROM in Greek).

This development required 5 years of research by physicists and materials engineers and called for the most advanced observation and analysis techniques. It resulted in the filing of applications for two patents, one for the protection of the chemical composition of the alloy, the other the way of modifying the surface of the hairspring to stabilize its properties (blue colouring). The blue colour of the hairspring increase the prestige of the watch. As a matter of fact, in the history of watch making, bluing a hairspring was an operation done only for the most accurate and sophisticated watches.

If the material of the PARACHROM hairspring is very specific, its manufacture necessitates very high technology which is fully mastered in house.

. . .

In 2005, ROLEX introduced another new feature on the PARACHROM hairspring by modifying the structure of its surface. The layer of oxygen present on the surface is transformed and thickened to about 50-100 nm to increase the long term stability of the oscillator even further. This modification of the surface colours the hairspring in blue (colouring by interference). This innovation has been patented.

Bluing steel escapement parts is a very old watchmakers skill used for a century or more . The watch or clock parts are roasted over heat in a small pan around 300°C the surface briefly turns the desired blue, before changing colour again.But Rolex uses a chemical method to make theirs blue


While I would agree that the mod in the 3186 to make the time
zone adjustment more precise is perhaps a plus.But the 3185 has proved to be a very accurate movement so as the rest of all the Rolex movements over the many decades.So IMHO would doubt if any new escapement spring could make them better. Considering the many many millions of them out there in this world today still running and accurate some many decades old.

Nivarox hairsprings used by the majority of all the Swiss industry for many many years including Rolex.But now several manufactures have now made there own under different names simply to stop the strangle hold the Swatch group on the Swiss watchmaking industry.Nivarox is the name for the metal used much like Rolex calling theres Parachrome.Now these alloys are mainly stainless steel type alloys with high concentrations of Cobalt, Nickel and high Chromium (16-22%).And very small amounts of titanium and beryllium.Now Hairsprings made of this alloy are quite wear-resistant and they are practically non-magnetic around 99.9%,plus the alloy is non-rusting and possess a low level of thermal expansion.And when used in conjunction with nickel, brass or beryllium, bronze or Glucydur balance wheels like Rolex and most of the high end brands, so they were 99.9% anti-magnetic to begin with.And even with the Nivarox hairsprings they had to meet the Swiss standard for anti-magnetic watches.Which is to withstand a strong magnetic field of 4800 Amps per meter.And to keeps on running with a maximum deviation of 15- 30 seconds per day.Now this test I am 100% sure that 99% of all watch wearers would never subject or come into contact with such a strong magnetic field no matter what hairspring was in the watch.

[Lion]

I thought the idea about buying a watch was to enjoy its looks and to be able to tell time. Companies will alway continue to make improvements to their products, that's the name of the game. The price goes up and everyone then wants one. If the older GMT 3185 meets COSC standards then it's pretty accurate and will perform appropriately for the owner!!! Instead of debating the plusses and minuses why not just enjoy your timepiece and live life to the fullest!!!

[TheVTCGuy]

This sure has brought up a lot of info and opinions and I'm glad, since I'm now searching for a GMT and doing this: Trying to decide on the Coke or Ceramic. I understand what a lot of your are saying, that the only real difference between the two is the Parachrom spring, and some are saying the only reason Rolex introduced that was to make it an all in-house movement. This is the part I must disagree with though, IMHO, a company with the reputation of Rolex would not change a crucial part of the movement JUST to have it an all in house, if there was not SOME improvement in the mechanisim. I am not a watchmaker, and can't say if the level of improvement justify's a higher cost or new movement number, but I just can not belive Rolex would in essence, go backwards, or even leave the level of quality the same and call it a new movement. Now, is the new spring THAT much of an improvement? Maybe not, it might turn out that it actually it is no improvement at all and in a couple years they discover some defect or something, mistakes like that have been made. But I have to think Rolex believes this new movement is SOME LEVEL of improvement, or they wouldn't have given it a new number.

Question is now, do I belive it's enough of an improvement to spend the money on a newer - C?

[BigHat]

Originally Posted by Lion

I thought the idea about buying a watch was to enjoy its looks and to be able to tell time. Companies will alway continue to make improvements to their products, that's the name of the game. The price goes up and everyone then wants one. If the older GMT 3185 meets COSC standards then it's pretty accurate and will perform appropriately for the owner!!! Instead of debating the plusses and minuses why not just enjoy your timepiece and live life to the fullest!!!

There's nothing wrong with understanding to the fullest what you are buying, and in this case, what matters and what's marketing BS.

If people just strapped them on and didn't care any further, we wouldn't have this site.

[chenx15]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

This sure has brought up a lot of info and opinions and I'm glad, since I'm now searching for a GMT and doing this: Trying to decide on the Coke or Ceramic. I understand what a lot of your are saying, that the only real difference between the two is the Parachrom spring, and some are saying the only reason Rolex introduced that was to make it an all in-house movement. This is the part I must disagree with though, IMHO, a company with the reputation of Rolex would not change a crucial part of the movement JUST to have it an all in house, if there was not SOME improvement in the mechanisim. I am not a watchmaker, and can't say if the level of improvement justify's a higher cost or new movement number, but I just can not belive Rolex would in essence, go backwards, or even leave the level of quality the same and call it a new movement. Now, is the new spring THAT much of an improvement? Maybe not, it might turn out that it actually it is no improvement at all and in a couple years they discover some defect or something, mistakes like that have been made. But I have to think Rolex believes this new movement is SOME LEVEL of improvement, or they wouldn't have given it a new number.

Question is now, do I belive it's enough of an improvement to spend the money on a newer - C?

believe it or not the newer -C are actually less expensive compared to the precerachrome with a 3186 movement. but is it worth it? i think so... i really like the c version it's new it's modern it's the sign of change but on the other hand i love the old 3185 and sadly loving too much costs a lot of money in our rolex world...

[Perdu]

I think they tightened the gear tollerances on the newer movement. (wiggle test).

[sheldonsmith]

I know I am late to the conversation, but there is a great comparison in the Watch Review section, as well as I have a page devoted to the differences here: http://www.minus4plus6.com/116710.htm

-Sheldon

[charliec]

Originally Posted by chenx15

what is the difference between the two?

The world according to some!!!

[emmagee]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

This sure has brought up a lot of info and opinions and I'm glad, since I'm now searching for a GMT and doing this: Trying to decide on the Coke or Ceramic. I understand what a lot of your are saying, that the only real difference between the two is the Parachrom spring, and some are saying the only reason Rolex introduced that was to make it an all in-house movement. This is the part I must disagree with though, IMHO, a company with the reputation of Rolex would not change a crucial part of the movement JUST to have it an all in house, if there was not SOME improvement in the mechanisim. I am not a watchmaker, and can't say if the level of improvement justify's a higher cost or new movement number, but I just can not belive Rolex would in essence, go backwards, or even leave the level of quality the same and call it a new movement. Now, is the new spring THAT much of an improvement? Maybe not, it might turn out that it actually it is no improvement at all and in a couple years they discover some defect or something, mistakes like that have been made. But I have to think Rolex believes this new movement is SOME LEVEL of improvement, or they wouldn't have given it a new number.

Question is now, do I belive it's enough of an improvement to spend the money on a newer - C?

I kinda went through the same thing, but, frankly, the movement was of no concern to me, it was all aesthetics. I initially wanted a GMT, preferably a coke or pepsi, but stopped by the AD one day to take a look at the C, I really, really liked it. I just got my C on Friday, a Z series, and paid less for at than some folks are asking for 16710's, realistically I probably paid $1000-$1200 more for a C than for a 16710. I really like the C, but wouldn't mind having an older GMT as well.