Does Rolex make its own movements?

[timkel]

Does Rolex manufacture its own movements? Or does someone else build to their specs? Is there anything special about their movements? I mean there are other high quality accurate watches available. What sets Rolex apart? Is it just the style? Or is there more on the inside?

[Mockingbird]

They make their own movement. It's nothing special, just your average chronometer movement. You'd find better finishing and attention to details elsewhere.

The good thing about their movements however is that they're built to last, and will outlive you even if you don't take the best care of it.

[457689]

why the two red colored gears (wheels)? IS that just a Rolex trademark/tradition kind of thing?

[Frogman4me]

Now that Rolex manufactures there own Hairsprings its safe to say the entire movement is in house. Yes, the movement although simple is proven to be accurate and built to last many lifetimes.

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by 457689

why the two red colored gears (wheels)? IS that just a Rolex trademark/tradition kind of thing?

It's a teflon coating to help against wear

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by timkel

Does Rolex manufacture its own movements? Or does someone else build to their specs? Is there anything special about their movements? I mean there are other high quality accurate watches available. What sets Rolex apart? Is it just the style? Or is there more on the inside?

They do indeed make their own movements - Rolex is one of very few watch manufacturers in the world that make just about every single component for their watches, they even smelt their own metal. The vast majority of watch brands at a similar kind of price level (Omega, Breitling, Panerai etc.) principally source their movements from elsewhere, from ETA (which is part of the Swatch group) as a general rule. ETA will sell them the ebauche, and the individual manufacturer will then decorate it and modify it to their own specifications.

However, ETA will be stopping this practice in the near future, selling only finished movements instead. You'll notice that a lot of brands are beginning to produce in-house movements, such as the Breitling B-01, for example. I believe it's going to take quite some time for rival brands to build up the necessary infrastructure to produce their own movements on the same kind of scale as Rolex, and even longer to reach the same levels of reliability and after sales care that Rolex provides.

Omega, for example, might have a more high-tech movement (in the form of the cal. 8500) than Rolex's equivalent (cal. 3135), but in my experience, it has been having some quite notable teething issues. The previous generation movement (cal. 2500) went through 3 iterations (A, B and C specs) before they resolved all the reliability issues. Rolex, on the other hand, has been using the cal. 3135 for about 20 years now, albeit with a few tweaks here and there, most recently to the hairspring and shock absorbers. However, it is very accurate, one of the most rugged and reliable movements money can buy, and very easy to service. Parts availability in the future will also be excellent, so as such, it is very hard to beat a Rolex movement. Yes, it might not be as pretty as some other movements, but as a workhorse, you can't get much better

[Shade]

Yes they make their own movements. Nothing like grande complications such as minute repeaters or annual callenders or perpetuals and that sorts. But robust reliable and accurate movement.

[R1@160@alltimes]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

They do indeed make their own movements - Rolex is one of very few watch manufacturers in the world that make just about every single component for their watches, they even smelt their own metal. The vast majority of watch brands at a similar kind of price level (Omega, Breitling, Panerai etc.) principally source their movements from elsewhere, from ETA (which is part of the Swatch group) as a general rule. ETA will sell them the ebauche, and the individual manufacturer will then decorate it and modify it to their own specifications.

However, ETA will be stopping this practice in the near future, selling only finished movements instead. You'll notice that a lot of brands are beginning to produce in-house movements, such as the Breitling B-01, for example. I believe it's going to take quite some time for rival brands to build up the necessary infrastructure to produce their own movements on the same kind of scale as Rolex, and even longer to reach the same levels of reliability and after sales care that Rolex provides.

Omega, for example, might have a more high-tech movement (in the form of the cal. 8500) than Rolex's equivalent (cal. 3135), but in my experience, it has been having some quite notable teething issues. The previous generation movement (cal. 2500) went through 3 iterations (A, B and C specs) before they resolved all the reliability issues. Rolex, on the other hand, has been using the cal. 3135 for about 20 years now, albeit with a few tweaks here and there, most recently to the hairspring and shock absorbers. However, it is very accurate, one of the most rugged and reliable movements money can buy, and very easy to service. Parts availability in the future will also be excellent, so as such, it is very hard to beat a Rolex movement. Yes, it might not be as pretty as some other movements, but as a workhorse, you can't get much better

[kerrison]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

They do indeed make their own movements - Rolex is one of very few watch manufacturers in the world that make just about every single component for their watches, they even smelt their own metal. The vast majority of watch brands at a similar kind of price level (Omega, Breitling, Panerai etc.) principally source their movements from elsewhere, from ETA (which is part of the Swatch group) as a general rule. ETA will sell them the ebauche, and the individual manufacturer will then decorate it and modify it to their own specifications.

However, ETA will be stopping this practice in the near future, selling only finished movements instead. You'll notice that a lot of brands are beginning to produce in-house movements, such as the Breitling B-01, for example. I believe it's going to take quite some time for rival brands to build up the necessary infrastructure to produce their own movements on the same kind of scale as Rolex, and even longer to reach the same levels of reliability and after sales care that Rolex provides.

Omega, for example, might have a more high-tech movement (in the form of the cal. 8500) than Rolex's equivalent (cal. 3135), but in my experience, it has been having some quite notable teething issues. The previous generation movement (cal. 2500) went through 3 iterations (A, B and C specs) before they resolved all the reliability issues. Rolex, on the other hand, has been using the cal. 3135 for about 20 years now, albeit with a few tweaks here and there, most recently to the hairspring and shock absorbers. However, it is very accurate, one of the most rugged and reliable movements money can buy, and very easy to service. Parts availability in the future will also be excellent, so as such, it is very hard to beat a Rolex movement. Yes, it might not be as pretty as some other movements, but as a workhorse, you can't get much better

Thank you Chris, great info

Can you, or anyone else, tell me a bit more about the Caliber 2235 which is in my new 31mm DateJust (178240) please?

Thank you!
Wen

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Frogman4me

Now that Rolex manufactures there own Hairsprings its safe to say the entire movement is in house. Yes, the movement although simple is proven to be accurate and built to last many lifetimes.

Not quite yet the mainsprings are still outsourced but during the RWC now Rolex early period many different types of watches were made rememeber Rolex in the early years were not watchmakers but buyers/sellers, and then Rolex did not have complete control over their now fully owned movement factory, they were only a minority shareholder. The full name of the company tells the story "Aegler, Société Anonyme,Horologies D Excellence Fabrique des Montres Rolex & Gruen Guild A.," this means, in translation, Aegler incorporated, manufacturer of Rolex & Gruen Guild A Watches. At this time ownership of the factory was split between three parties, Herman Aegler (movements only), (Hans Wilsdorf of now Rolex, RWC watch sales) and the Gruen brothers, Frederick Gruen and George Gruen.Now Aegler manufactured movements for both companies, who then sold the completed branded watches in their respective territories; Wilsdorf of Rolex, throughout Europe, Asia and the British Empire; whilst the Gruen brothers sold in the USA only. This arrangement worked well until Rolex acquired the patent for the the Oyster case and screw down crown system; now they had something very new and special which they wished to sell all over the world, not just in their limited territory. However the three way partnership prohibited Rolex from selling their products with Aegler movement in the Gruen brothers' territory (and vice-versa).

So Hans of Rolex being a very clever and shrewd man, took a sideways move and fitted their new Oyster cases with a movement from FHF (Fontmelon)factory just down the road from Gruen and then tried to find a US distributor. They came across the firm of Abercrombie and Fitch,this was then a store specialising in sportsman's' equipment; whether you wanted to go shooting in Africa, fishing for salmon or trout around the world, Abercrombie and Fitch was the place you went for all your sporting equipment. Everything from fishing rods to double barrelled shotguns could be found under their roof. As the sportsman's store they seemed the ideal place to sell the first oyster watches, which were already building a reputation as the sportsman's watch. It may have seemed the ideal place but it did not work out that way, firstly because Rolex sold the cheaper down-market version of their watches in a high end store, and also because Abercrombie & Fitch did not advertise the watch sufficiently.

Now these Abercrombie & Fitch watches are probably the rarest of all the cushion case oysters, in all my life I have only ever seen one; it was signed "Abercrombie and Fitch (Seafarer) on the dial and the case and movement were signed Oyster Watch Company.The case was quite badly pitted because then they were made from a base metal, a chromed zinc material that did not last very long,a bit like the relationship between Rolex and Abercrombie & Fitch.Now they went on to become the USA main distributor for the Swiss Heuer watches, probably more of a sportsman's watch to speak of, being mainly chronograph watches.

After a couple of years in the wildiness Rolex decided to give the USA market another try. This was after they had been approached by Zell Brothers, a jewellery store chain in the Pacific North West of the USA, headquartered in Seattle. Zell had seen the great success of Rolex in Canada, and in Vancouver in particular (Seattle and Vancouver are only about 150km apart). They asked to be made the exclusive importer for Rolex in the Pacific North West, and Rolex eager to get a US foot hold accepted their proposal. The strange thing is that, despite the Canadian success either Zell or Rolex decided not to use the famed "Oyster" name but substituted the name Turtle Timer, (IMHO undoubtedly Zell) Once again these were non-Aegler (non-Rolex) movements, so as not to disturb the three way relationship with Gruen. Zell were much more successful than Abercrombie/Fitch had been, but can hardly be described as having made a major market breakthrough. I have seen around 5 or 6 pictures of these watches and because they were made when Rolex was using real stainless steel the cases looked to have lasted much better than the A&F ones ever did. But Zells had two major problems as far as Rolex were concerned; firstly they were a regional not national chain and their insistence on using their own Turtle Timer name and not Oyster meant that Rolex would never reap the benefit of any of the new oyster case success.Now in these early days of Rolex only about 1 in 5 had the name Rolex on the Dial,the rest were blank dials when they left the factory.But after the arrival of the oyster case most of the oyster cased ones did have the name Rolex on the dial.But most Rolex movemnts were made by Aegler and even today a member of the Aegler family still runs the movement side of todays Rolex company movement factory with some of the finest long lasting movements made today. .

[Jinder]

Good reading!

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by kerrison

Thank you Chris, great info

Can you, or anyone else, tell me a bit more about the Caliber 2235 which is in my new 31mm DateJust (178240) please?

Thank you!
Wen

Hi Wen,

There's not a massive amount of detail out there about it, but I would recommend reading this article - goes into quite some detail about the mechanics of the movement. The other nugget of information that I can remember about the cal. 2235 is that it has the highest first time pass rate of any movement undertaking COSC testing

Hope that helps

Chris

[padi56]

Originally Posted by kerrison

Thank you Chris, great info :thumb sup:

Can you, or anyone else, tell me a bit more about the Calibre 2235 which is in my new MM Date Just (178240) please?

Thank you!
Wen

Well in proportion to the movements sent for testing at the Swiss CO SC the cal 2235 has one of the highest first time pass rates.And for a considered small movement its got a very good record for accuracy, and IMHO its one of Rolex finest movements to date.

[timkel]

Thanks to all. Lots of good information

[Watch Professor]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

They do indeed make their own movements - Rolex is one of very few watch manufacturers in the world that make just about every single component for their watches, they even smelt their own metal. The vast majority of watch brands at a similar kind of price level (Omega, Breitling, Panerai etc.) principally source their movements from elsewhere, from ETA (which is part of the Swatch group) as a general rule. ETA will sell them the ebauche, and the individual manufacturer will then decorate it and modify it to their own specifications.

However, ETA will be stopping this practice in the near future, selling only finished movements instead. You'll notice that a lot of brands are beginning to produce in-house movements, such as the Breitling B-01, for example. I believe it's going to take quite some time for rival brands to build up the necessary infrastructure to produce their own movements on the same kind of scale as Rolex, and even longer to reach the same levels of reliability and after sales care that Rolex provides.

Omega, for example, might have a more high-tech movement (in the form of the cal. 8500) than Rolex's equivalent (cal. 3135), but in my experience, it has been having some quite notable teething issues. The previous generation movement (cal. 2500) went through 3 iterations (A, B and C specs) before they resolved all the reliability issues. Rolex, on the other hand, has been using the cal. 3135 for about 20 years now, albeit with a few tweaks here and there, most recently to the hairspring and shock absorbers. However, it is very accurate, one of the most rugged and reliable movements money can buy, and very easy to service. Parts availability in the future will also be excellent, so as such, it is very hard to beat a Rolex movement. Yes, it might not be as pretty as some other movements, but as a workhorse, you can't get much better

Excellent summary. In a recent interview in "Watch Time" before he died, Mr Hayek stated that the Swatch Group will continue selling complte ETA movements to established companies, such as Rolex for the Tudor line, but will stop selling to fashion houses that he felt had no business being in the watch business. He said that they should either produce their own movements or get out of the business.

[conrail]

Originally Posted by Frogman4me

Now that Rolex manufactures there own Hairsprings its safe to say the entire movement is in house. Yes, the movement although simple is proven to be accurate and built to last many lifetimes.

Agreed, and simple is the name of the game - for example, the new Daytona movement, the Rolex 4130, uses far fewer parts than comparable chrono movements.

[timkel]

Originally Posted by Watch Professor

Excellent summary. In a recent interview in "Watch Time" before he died, Mr Hayek stated that the Swatch Group will continue selling complte ETA movements to established companies, such as Rolex for the Tudor line, but will stop selling to fashion houses that he felt had no business being in the watch business. He said that they should either produce their own movements or get out of the business.

What who is ETA? Do they make quality movements? I also have a watch with an ETA 2834-4 movement. Are they good? bad? or ugly?. It has been a very accurate timepiece.

[chris russell]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

Omega, for example, might have a more high-tech movement (in the form of the cal. 8500) than Rolex's equivalent (cal. 3135), but in my experience, it has been having some quite notable teething issues. The previous generation movement (cal. 2500) went through 3 iterations (A, B and C specs) before they resolved all the reliability issues. Rolex, on the other hand, has been using the cal. 3135 for about 20 years now, albeit with a few tweaks here and there, most recently to the hairspring and shock absorbers. However, it is very accurate, one of the most rugged and reliable movements money can buy, and very easy to service. Parts availability in the future will also be excellent, so as such, it is very hard to beat a Rolex movement. Yes, it might not be as pretty as some other movements, but as a workhorse, you can't get much better.

Omega did have some reliability and other related issues with the 2500 movements, partly because they incorporated the 2-layer variant of the Coaxial escapement in order to fit it into the base ETA 2892. The more ideal 3-layer CoAx escapement is used in the 8500 movement, which in itself was designed more along the lines of the Rolex approach with larger bearing surfaces and thicker gear-wheels for better long-term reliability. So far as I know, the 8500 has been performing admirably. In my experience it's the only mechanical movement that is as long-term consistent and accurate as the Rolex movements, both the 4130 and the 3130 Series.

[chris russell]

Originally Posted by timkel

What who is ETA? Do they make quality movements? I also have a watch with an ETA 2834-4 movement. Are they good? bad? or ugly?. It has been a very accurate timepiece.

ETA is the main movement manufacturer for the Swatch Group and for many other non-related watch manfacturers. They have been in business for many decades, and most of their movements have been in production long enough that they have been refined to the point of excellent performance and reliability. For the most part, they are good workhorses, not designed to be pretty like AP, FP, GP, VC, Patek or other horology houses' movements, but some companies decorate them to dress them up. I would consider their design to be form-follows-function, far from ugly. The 2834 is available in several levels of build refinement to improve accuracy and consistency. It is capable of COSC performance in the upper levels of construction.

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by chris russell

Omega did have some reliability and other related issues with the 2500 movements, partly because they incorporated the 2-layer variant of the Coaxial escapement in order to fit it into the base ETA 2892. The more ideal 3-layer CoAx escapement is used in the 8500 movement, which in itself was designed more along the lines of the Rolex approach with larger bearing surfaces and thicker gear-wheels for better long-term reliability. So far as I know, the 8500 has been performing admirably. In my experience it's the only mechanical movement that is as long-term consistent and accurate as the Rolex movements, both the 4130 and the 3130 Series.

I don't doubt the potential of the cal. 8500 at all, but I've already seen a good few come back to be repaired under warranty. Of the ones we've sent back, the two movements that seem to be having problems at present are the 8500 and 3313

[slcbbrown]

Originally Posted by timkel

What who is ETA? Do they make quality movements? I also have a watch with an ETA 2834-4 movement. Are they good? bad? or ugly?. It has been a very accurate timepiece.

I've got two watches with ETA movements. Much like Rolex, ETA has been making and refining many of their movements for a long time. I'm confident that they can match the quality of many other manufacture movements.

My biggest concern is that I don't know what grade of movement is in my ETA-movement watches. ETA makes several grades of some of their more common movements. In the case of some of the higher grade watches, the watch maker has upgraded the ETA movement.

Because I bought ETA-movement watches from decent watch companies, I feel secure but don't actually know what I've got. Rolex is always Rolex, and that's pretty comforting.

[timkel]

I made a typo- I actually have a ETA 2834-2 movement

[Danand]

This has been a very interesting thread. Thanks all.

[cupm]

excellent read, thank you

[MikeJaye]

Originally Posted by Danand

This has been a very interesting thread. Thanks all.

Ditto...thanks!

[Paracentesis]

I believe the ETA 2892-A2 is considered a broad match for the Rolex movements.

So how does it [ETA 2892-A2] compare to the competition? There are some movements that match it in terms of accuracy and reliability, but in my humble opinion, none exceed it. The Rolex 3035 and 3135 match it toe to toe. But they are a lot thicker and considerably more expensive too.

http://www.chronometrie.com/eta2892/eta2892.html

[Jason71]

Originally Posted by Paracentesis

I believe the ETA 2892-A2 is considered a broad match for the Rolex movements.



http://www.chronometrie.com/eta2892/eta2892.html

In my experience, (owning quite a number of ETA 2824-2 and also several ETA 2892-A2 movement watches) The ETA movements can be quite accurate, but they don't seem to hold their accuracy reliably over a period of time.

For Instance, I have a Doxa GMT that has an ETA 2893-2 movement. When I first bought it, the watch was deadly accurate with being less than one second off per day. It stayed like this for about 1 year. I have never dropped it, bumped it, and am always careful when wearing it. Now that the watch is 3 years old, it is +5 sec/day. I am sure that I could probably have it regulated, but it still keeps decent time.

I also have one that has an ETA 2824-2 movement. It needed a service after just 3 years. I realize that these are only 2 instances, but all of my Rolex watches keep within COSC time, and several are 8-10 years old without a service.

These are less expensive watches, and I wouldn't say that the ETA movements really compare to the Rolex movements much at all.

Just my 2c

[rolexrenegade]

There was a magazine article speaking of the Rolex movement factory, located in Bienne, founded in 1878.

[Dr. Robert]

Rolex built..............takes a licking & keeps on ticking!

[Johny]

a very interesting topic. thank you all.