GMT-MASTER ll "misprint" and new 3186 movement

[Scarface]

I am quoting Billy (TRF member name):

Baselworld 2008 Update on GMT-MASTER ll "misprint"

"...I confirmed at the Rolex both 4.4.08 with a Rolex rep. The truth of the matter is that the movemets of the watches with the dials that are missing the roman numerals actually contain the new GMT II movement (3186) as is found in the "ceramic" GMT II (reference 116710). Rolex put the new movements into the "old" (16710) to test the movement prior to putting it in the new case.... So the answer is that it is not a mistake, but an intentional variation so that Rolex could monitor more easily the new movement prior to releasing the 116710. They are obviously rare and limited. Sorry again for the bad information earlier..."

So the hypothesis is that all GMT-MASTER ll instead of Roman "II" actually contain the 3186 movement; thus, ll is not a misprint but, instead, a way to know that the new 3186 movement is inside the old case.
Carlos (Mandrake - TRF member) has confirmed a few days ago that his new Pepsi has the 3186 mechanism but he doesn't mention the dial print.

So, what do you think and most importantly what do you know?

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Well, I would tend to doubt that hypothesis since the || versus II print has existed long before Rolex introduced the Cal. 3186.

[BillA]

It is clear that Rolex used atleast 2 different fonts for the "2" in the 16710 GMT II. One appears to be roman numeral markers (for lack of a better description) and the other seems to be parallel sticks (for lack of a better description).

I am not sure you can make a conclusion that one of the styles has the 3186 and the other does not.

I have another thought on it........My 16710 Pepsi came with the newer Users Manual, the one for the GMTIIC. At first I thought the AD or Rolex mixed up the manuals, I am beginning to think it was on purpose because my watch may very well have the 3186 in it (no wiggle, and Z7xxxxxx serial number). so another theory is that if you have a 16710 with the newer manual, you may have the 3186. But then again, the sure way is to crack open the back.

[Scarface]

This is also plausible.....
I 'll give an update to this issue tomorrow once I get mine at hands, a new M-series Pepsi...

1) Wiggle test...and...
2) Manual...

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Originally Posted by Scarface

(...)

1) Wiggle test...and...
2) Manual...

Why does this sound dirty??

[Scarface]

....Maybe cause YOU have a dirty mind Bo ???????

I mean, who would ever think this way??

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Originally Posted by Scarface

....Maybe cause YOU have a dirty mind Bo ???????

I mean, who would ever think this way??

Wiggle test:

[BillA]

Hey Bo

What do you think about the theory of the newer manual being included with the 16170 / 3186 movement vs. the old manual?

[Scarface]

Originally Posted by SPACE-DWELLER

Wiggle test:

[Scarface]

Originally Posted by BillA

Hey Bo

What do you think about the theory of the newer manual being included with the 16170 / 3186 movement vs. the old manual?

BillA, does the new manual has significant changes that apply strictly to the new 3186 movement?

[BillA]

No, because the operation of the hands is the same.
But it does reference "ceramic" bezel which the 16710 does not have, and it talks about the blue spring.

I just swopped mine, for an older manual, not sure I should have, may also get another manual, just in case.

I am interested to see what manual comes with your M serial

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Originally Posted by BillA

Hey Bo

What do you think about the theory of the newer manual being included with the 16170 / 3186 movement vs. the old manual?

I am thinking that Rolex might have run out of the old brochures. And producing new ones would be both financially and environmentally unwise.

[TempoKing]

The test means really nothing, I performed the wiggle..lol..and it does wiggle...the good part is that the movement is 3186 on my new M serial 16710 pictured below...and soon to be sold for 4100...ONLY..(am I going to regret this sale..?).
As far as the story about...Rolex put the new movements into the "old" (16710) to test the movement prior to putting it in the new case.. ...I do not think that Rolex S.A. would sell a watch as a test mule in order to make sure that another (116710) works perfect .....somehow through the years I found that you are never sure 100% with this company about numbers, calibers, cases, design etc.

[2careless]

I think our discussions on the 3185/6 are futile without Rolex disclosing their production reasons. While not trying to sound negative, I'm not quite sure about Billy's motive in writing those 2 posts (I did read it like 2 weeks ago). It's plausible but I would give more credence if it were posted by other trusted TRF experts.

P.S. I did get the new GMT2c booklet for my M series pepsi.

[BillA]

TempoKing
Did you crack open the case back to look at the movement?
Which booklet did you get? Old or new?
Sorry for dumb question.

[TempoKing]

Originally Posted by BillA

TempoKing
Did you crack open the case back to look at the movement?
Which booklet did you get? Old or new?
Sorry for dumb question.

Yes, I opened the case, I did the wiggle, I looked at the II straight or Roman but the ultimate test was to open the case..so I did.....3186......Oh, and the booklet is the old one

[Scarface]

Originally Posted by SPACE-DWELLER

I am thinking that Rolex might have run out of the old brochures. And producing new ones would be both financially and environmentally unwise.

Oh you cynical/realist thinker....you make every mystery evaporate

[BillA]

thanks TempoKing

Well there goes my theory about the newer manual for the 3186 movement if you got the older manual!

[Scarface]

I like the fact that we take things too seriously with theory-building, testing and falsification...and over and over to a new theory proposal....it reminds me of academic research process
Big credit to all researchers here

[sheldonsmith]

I have some examples and info on this posted at http://www.minus4plus6.com/paracromblu16710.htm

-Sheldon

[Hamilton Carvalho]

We love the mistery, don't we?

Originally Posted by Scarface

I like the fact that we take things too seriously with theory-building, testing and falsification...and over and over to a new theory proposal....it reminds me of academic research process
Big credit to all researchers here

[Scarface]

Originally Posted by sheldonsmith

I have some examples and info on this posted at http://www.minus4plus6.com/paracromblu16710.htm

-Sheldon

Thanks Sheldon

This clears lots of the dust on this issue

[Scarface]

Originally Posted by Hamilton Carvalho

We love the mistery, don't we?

Hehe, yes we do

[CPTL]

From your post, it sounds like the stick-dial as an indicator of the 3186 is still a theory. I am skeptical that the mysterious Rolex Rep knows anything, as those guys routinely seem to be be as clueless as the rest of us.

So is it still a theory?

One thing that would deflate that theory is that no M-serial Exp-IIs have been noted with a stick dial, while they are almost certainly fitted with the 3186. My Exp-II is losing only 1.5 seconds per day, consistent for five days.

[BillA]

Yes, I think the stick dial vs. the roman dial is a theory.

I was getting my hopes up that if you got the new booklet with the 16710, you had a 3186 inside, nope, that theory is out the window.

Also seems the wiggle test is out the window, too. One poster above said his 16710 did wiggle, opened it up and was a 3186 under the hood.

I think we all may be wasting our time on this one, me included, if you want to know for sure go to an AD and have them crack open the case back. As far as that, I am not doing that to my piece, it runs, dead on.

[Hamilton Carvalho]

I called the RSC in New York last week to question them wheather or not the GMT II M Series comes with the 3186 movement. The supervisor of the technical department told me that the only way to find that out is by opening the watch. As soon as I receive mine I'll take it to Rolex to end the mistery.

[acce1999]

Interesting. So the 24 h hand did move whilst changing timezones? I do not remember if it was sheldonsmith or tahoeblue that concluded that the wiggle test is not enough to conclude that you have a 3186. What most likely is true is that IF the 24 h hand do NOT move you can be pretty certain (but not totally ;-)) you have the 3186, but if it moves you can have the 3185 OR the 3186, as obviously proven by TempoKing. So "non-wiggle" = 3186, "wiggle" = says nothing...

Just to make sure though. The minute hand seems to wiggle slightly on both 3186 and 3185, whilst the 24 h hand seems to be absolutely still.

Perhaps I have to pop my M-serial ExII (with no wiggle) open anyway... I am curious on the possibility to find more facts.

What I do have hard to believe is Rolex "testing" the 3186 in a series of 16710 before rolling them out in 116710. In that case they should have rolled them out a year or so before the 18k GMT-IIc was launched (which was first to use the 3186), and if that was the case this issue would have been discussed a long time ago, having 16710s from 2005 or so equipped with 3186.

Best,

A

[Scarface]

Originally Posted by BillA

... if you want to know for sure go to an AD and have them crack open the case back. As far as that, I am not doing that to my piece....

Me neither...I love this watch anyway...

[CPTL]

It's likely not a "testing" issue. There is no reason for Rolex to make two versions of the same movement. Once they put the 3186 into full production, and they used up all the 3185s, all GMT-IIs and Exp-IIs were probably fitted with the 3186.

[springer]

Sheldon, that was some great info...you da man!