[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...