3185 vs 3186

[chenx15]

what is the difference between the two?

[Dan Pierce]

1.
dP

[jdc]

3186 movement uses a new hairspring called PARACHROM. This hairspring is made of a niobium, zirconium and oxygen alloy. This was developed so Rolex could have in house control over supply. I expect there may be a few minor differences but the 3186 is just a bit of tinkering of the 3185.
However if you have a 3186 in a late GMT 16710, it seems it make all the difference to some owners/buyers.

[Dan Pierce]

Oh man, I thought it was just a math question.:thinking::chuckle:
Sorry, chenx. I deserve a swift kick in the :bartmoon:. Feeling a little under the weather and a bit wacky today.:dummy::thumbsup:
dP

[Randy]

3186 will bring a slight premium over the 3185 movement.

[jdc]

Oh man, I thought it was just a math question.:thinking::chuckle:
Sorry, chenx. I deserve a swift kick in the :bartmoon:. Feeling a little under the weather and a bit wacky today.:dummy::thumbsup:
dP

maybe a sense of deja vu in the question Dan :chuckle:

[chenx15]

It's all good I am still under the weather. The right answer is -1 anyway. Ha ha ha.

Oh man, I thought it was just a math question.:thinking::chuckle:
Sorry, chenx. I deserve a swift kick in the :bartmoon:. Feeling a little under the weather and a bit wacky today.:dummy::thumbsup:
dP

[Dan Pierce]

It's all good I am still under the weather. The right answer is -1 anyway. Ha ha ha.

:lol::rofl::rofl::lol::thumbsup:
dP

[VisibleSpecter]

Also the Parachrom hairspring is more shock-resistant, truly anti-magnetic, and seems to keep incredible time. I've heard of the newest GMTs keeping within .5 secs per day. My watch gains roughly 2 secs per day, although it has been regulated.

[ROBERT123]

The difference, better movement and accuracy.

[JJ Irani]

what is the difference between the two?

I think an extra 500 bucks!! :banghead:

[chenx15]

ok, just to sum this up. the 3186 has the new parachrome spring for better accuracy, better shock absorption, and also durabilty. we also came to a conclusion that the difference between 3185 and 3186 is negative one and not positive one and that this slight difference is 500 dollars more

[LDLemu4U]

ok, just to sum this up. the 3186 has the new parachrome spring for better accuracy, better shock absorption, and also durabilty. we also came to a conclusion that the difference between 3185 and 3186 is negative one and not positive one and that this slight difference is 500 dollars more

and the new spring is truly anti-magnetic as per InvisibleSpectre

[jdc]

ok, just to sum this up. the 3186 has the new parachrome spring for better accuracy, better shock absorption, and also durabilty. we also came to a conclusion that the difference between 3185 and 3186 is negative one and not positive one and that this slight difference is 500 dollars more

don't know about the 3185 being negative to the 3185. The 3185 and other movements in vintage watches when properly serviced keep very accurate time. My 2002 3185 gains less than a second a day. The 3186 has not been around long and I would guess is not much different in accuracy to the older movements.

[chenx15]

don't know about the 3185 being negative to the 3185. The 3185 and other movements in vintage watches when properly serviced keep very accurate time. My 2002 3185 gains less than a second a day. The 3186 has not been around long and I would guess is not much different in accuracy to the older movements.

that was a joke my friend. dan answered my question by doing it mathematically. check the whole thread:chuckle:

[Lion]

I know much has been said about the differences between the two movements but is the newer one really worth the difference??? Even with the other improvements to the 116710, is it really worth an extra $1250.00. Don't get me wrong, I would love to own the newer model but will either buy from a grey dealer or buy a used one when the time comes!!!

[Dan Pierce]

don't know about the 3185 being negative to the 3185. The 3185 and other movements in vintage watches when properly serviced keep very accurate time. My 2002 3185 gains less than a second a day. The 3186 has not been around long and I would guess is not much different in accuracy to the older movements.

I agree, Martin.:cheers: The 3185 is an accurate movement. The changes in the 3186 are no doubt improvements but not to the degree that it would influence a purchase.:read::thumbsup:
dP

[chenx15]

I know much has been said about the differences between the two movements but is the newer one really worth the difference??? Even with the other improvements to the 116710, is it really worth an extra $1250.00. Don't get me wrong, I would love to own the newer model but will either buy from a grey dealer or buy a used one when the time comes!!!

actually the older models (z,m,d, pre cerachrome models) are selling at a higher price than the GMTIIC brand new.

[chenx15]

i like them all... if i only have enough money then i don't have to choose... choice choices choices

[Dan Pierce]

I should also add, that's coming from a guy who wears Tudors. I don't care so much about the movement as long as it's Swiss and wrapped in a Rolex Oyster.:thumbsup:

[jdc]

I should also add, that's coming from a guy who wear Tudors. I don't care so much about the movement as long as it's Swiss and wrapped in a Rolex Oyster.:thumbsup:

spot on :thumbsup:

[chenx15]

I should also add, that's coming from a guy who wears Tudors. I don't care so much about the movement as long as it's Swiss and wrapped in a Rolex Oyster.:thumbsup:

Dan, i'm very short on funds now and your tudors will just get me into deeper trouble!:crying:

[padi56]

The difference, better movement and accuracy.

Not true all rolex movements are tested to the same Swiss COSC standard so one is as accurate as any in the range.Accuracy has a lot to do with how the watch is worn etc what will be say within a second or so on one wrist could be quite different on another.Basically all the movements for the mens line up are just clones of the Cal 3135 with or without added complications.
and the 3186 is only a slightly modded 3185.One of my most accurate Rolex has the Cal 1520 movement not even COSC tested if that mattered.And I would put any of the 15XX movements up against any modern day Rolex with or without the parachrome hairspring accuracy wise.And if any mechanical watch any brand
performs consistently within the COSC standard of -4+6 seconds a day. What more could anyone ask from a mechanical watch if you want better afraid its a quartz.

[karmatp]

Not true all rolex movements are tested to the same Swiss COSC standard so one is as accurate as any in the range.Accuracy has a lot to do with how the watch is worn etc what will be say within a second or so on one wrist could be quite different on another.Basically all the movements for the mens line up are just clones of the Cal 3135 with or without added complications.
and the 3186 is only a slightly modded 3185.One of my most accurate Rolex has the Cal 1520 movement not even COSC tested if that mattered.And I would put any of the 15XX movements up against any modern day Rolex with or without the parachrome hairspring accuracy wise.And if any mechanical watch any brand
performs consistently within the COSC standard of -4+6 seconds a day. What more could anyone ask from a mechanical watch if you want better afraid its a quartz.

If you do a search, Padi has responded probably 100 times to this and similar questions regarding these two movements, he knows his stuff. I for one, don't buy into all the hype with the blue hairspring. It's just cleaver marketing and people are paying way to much for basically the same movement, the 3186 is 99.8% the same as the 3185. It is not more accurate and I have never had a problem with magnetizing a watch, it's just Rolex trying to convince us that they should be selling their watches for money, and we need to be buying them.

[padi56]

If you do a search, Padi has responded probably 100 times to this and similar questions regarding these two movements, he knows his stuff. I for one, don't buy into all the hype with the blue hairspring. It's just cleaver marketing and people are paying way to much for basically the same movement, the 3186 is 99.8% the same as the 3185. It is not more accurate and I have never had a problem with magnetizing a watch, it's just Rolex trying to convince us that they should be selling their watches for money, and we need to be buying them.

Glad some members can see beyond the hype.

[directioneng]

I see you two are still agreeing with each other. :thumbsup::thumbsup::chuckle:

And you still haven't got that 3186 yet, Trevor. :thumbsup::thumbsup::justkiddi

Trevor,

Where did you get the 99.8% and how do you know the 3186 is not more accurate. Have you compared the two movements, how many have you compared and over what period of time. Can you submit these results to support your statement? :chuckle:
Rolex didn't market these watches as being different and the price for the old 3186 and 3185 GMT's was the same at my AD, in fact my AD didn't know the last GMT's had a 3186 in it. :chuckle:
IMO this 'hype' as YOU call it was brought about by the buyers in the first instance because of the lack of availability and then the sellers got into the act to move stock quicker and at a higher price where they could.

The facts are that Rolex made enough changes to the 3185 movement for them to change the Cal number to 3186 and that is significant. You should be convincing Rolex of this mistake not me. The smaller numbers of old model GMT's made with the 3186 and the discontinuing of the model is what 'might' make a difference to the price now and in the future.
An old model 3186 GMT 'Z' right now is fetching a higher price in the market and will sell before a similar old model 3185 'Z' GMT and that is a fact. This might change over the years but whatever happens in the future IMO is pure speculation on your part. :cheers:

[directioneng]

I think we should change the name of the old GMT II 3186 to:

'The Mighty Transitional ROLEX 3186 PBS AntiWiggle GMT II'

As befits a Rolex of this standing. :rofl:

[louie]

i'm sure trevor and Padi don't own any of the 'The Mighty Transitional ROLEX 3186 PBS AntiWiggle GMT II' :bartmoon:

[padi56]

i'm sure trevor and Padi don't own any of the 'The Mighty Transitional ROLEX 3186 PBS AntiWiggle GMT II' :bartmoon:

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.

[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. :cheers:

[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]

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. :cheers:

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

[BigHat]

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. :smokin:

[MrCowboy99]

An assertion about the mythical powers of 904L?

Chics love 904L...
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[karmatp]

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]

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. :smokin:

You are to quick for my old fingers!!!:thumbsup:

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]

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. :cheers:
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: :banghead: 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? :banghead:

[BigHat]

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. :cheers:

[chenx15]

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: :banghead: 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? :banghead:

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]

http://www.minus4plus6.com/images/stands.jpg

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]

what is the difference between the two?

The world according to some!!!

[emmagee]

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: :banghead: 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? :banghead:

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.