The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX


Go Back   Rolex Forums - Rolex Watch Forum > Rolex & Tudor Watch Topics > Rolex General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 1 July 2017, 04:50 AM   #31
Portland
"TRF" Member
 
Portland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Real Name: Paul
Location: Portland, OR
Watch: 116610LN
Posts: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calatrava r View Post
Any thoughts that the longer power reserve adds greater accuracy to the new movement as an added plus.


I'm not sure how much more accurate it could get. The 3135 in my 116610Ln..


Portland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 July 2017, 05:08 AM   #32
KingRichard
"TRF" Member
 
KingRichard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Canada
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by skirsch View Post
I have a question that I would like to ask those of you who pay particular attention and have more knowledge than me related to Rolex Movements. I have a new Submariner (purchased in the last 2 weeks new) that contains the 3135 (latest version) and the Sea Dweller 43 which contains the 3235.

Other than the obvious power reserve difference (3135=48) (3235=70), how do these movements compare in terms of quality and how much of an evolution is there in the new 3235? I know Rolex improves movements that have been in place for a long time so the 3135 have continued to develop.

What are the core differences between them and what will the 3235 offer that is new or improved. From an accuracy standpoint, the Submariner is dead on after a week and the Sea Dweller is 1 second fast after 2 weeks. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks Stephen
As others have said, the only major difference is the power reserve...which is quite significant. Quality wise, there is no difference. No difference, in that any modern Rolex movement is exceptional. The fact that Rolex has been using and still continues to use the 3135 movement in the last thirty years says a lot. It means it's great.

Its a shame that the 3235 hasn't made its way into the sub yet, because it no doubt well if not next year than the year after, however you have a rock solid piece that is going to outlive you and by waiting until they do put the newer movement in it, your basically just delaying gratification...is it worth it?
KingRichard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 July 2017, 05:21 AM   #33
NeoXerxes
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: USA
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingRichard View Post
As others have said, the only major difference is the power reserve...which is quite significant. Quality wise, there is no difference. No difference, in that any modern Rolex movement is exceptional. The fact that Rolex has been using and still continues to use the 3135 movement in the last thirty years says a lot. It means it's great.

Its a shame that the 3235 hasn't made its way into the sub yet, because it no doubt well if not next year than the year after, however you have a rock solid piece that is going to outlive you and by waiting until they do put the newer movement in it, your basically just delaying gratification...is it worth it?
Great points, as there is nothing at all wrong with the 3135 movement. Perhaps I would be less willing to wait if I didn't just plunk down a good portion of the cash for the Daytona I just pre-ordered :).
NeoXerxes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 July 2017, 07:29 AM   #34
VicLeChic
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Real Name: Victor
Location: Spain
Watch: YM 116622 - SD43
Posts: 2,598
There are enough differences to postpone buying a 3135 based piece right now and to wait for the 3235 to be introduced in any model you might be after, being the Sub, the YM, Exp or whatever catches your fancy. That's what I would do anyway.

I don't have much experience with the 3235 yet (a bit more than a month) but it looks promising: better resistance to shocks, to magnetism, more efficient (less friction) Chronergy escapement and the higher power reserve of course.

The 3135 is a tried and tested workhorse with enough history to know it's dependable and reliable. However, why would anyone chose the 3135 over the 3235, all other things being equal? It's like buying one car with the old engine rather then the brand new revamped one for the same money. The only reason that would tip the balance for me is if the ADs with Rolex approval would offer the old 3135 based models at a nice discount, e.g. 3135 Sub at 25% off.
VicLeChic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 July 2017, 08:46 AM   #35
Majin Buu
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Real Name: Joe
Location: Planet Earth
Watch: Datejust now
Posts: 915
Hello !
I was wondering the same thing, regarding which "is better"
I have the new SD (red letters), compared to my subs, DJ2
It took only 20 (if no less) crown turns to have the seconds hands
moving, the others at least (if not more) 30 to 40 crown turns to see seconds
hands moving... hope it helps!

Cheers

J.
Majin Buu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 July 2017, 08:50 AM   #36
peterskinner
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: East Sussex U
Posts: 1,351
Having had real problems with the changeover on the new movement in my DayDate, I am cautious. The earlier 31.. iterations have been refined over many years, and that really matters. And my 3235 was no more, or less accurate than the earlier movement.
No doubt, In the long term , it will be another Rolex classic, but it has already had modifications, and right now I am in no rush to leave the 3135 behind. And as I change watches often, the longer power reserve hardly matters. I certainly wouldn't let the new movement dictate which model I bought. All Rolex movements are superb.
peterskinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 July 2017, 08:57 AM   #37
Dirt
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by VicLeChic View Post
There are enough differences to postpone buying a 3135 based piece right now and to wait for the 3235 to be introduced in any model you might be after, being the Sub, the YM, Exp or whatever catches your fancy. That's what I would do anyway.

I don't have much experience with the 3235 yet (a bit more than a month) but it looks promising: better resistance to shocks, to magnetism, more efficient (less friction) Chronergy escapement and the higher power reserve of course.

The 3135 is a tried and tested workhorse with enough history to know it's dependable and reliable. However, why would anyone chose the 3135 over the 3235, all other things being equal? It's like buying one car with the old engine rather then the brand new revamped one for the same money. The only reason that would tip the balance for me is if the ADs with Rolex approval would offer the old 3135 based models at a nice discount, e.g. 3135 Sub at 25% off.
Sometimes the new engine is not as good in real terms than the older version.
It's not until it's been updated or recalled to fix some serious issues that it's worth having and then not until it's at the end of its development cycle that it becomes really good.
In that case one could wait between 10 and 30 years

The 4130 is known to have been updated.
It took a while for the 3130 to come into its peak of development from it's beginnings.
I think the 3135 has had a few tweaks along the way as well to arrive at it's ultimate best
Dirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 July 2017, 09:05 AM   #38
Dirt
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterskinner View Post
Having had real problems with the changeover on the new movement in my DayDate, I am cautious. The earlier 31.. iterations have been refined over many years, and that really matters. And my 3235 was no more, or less accurate than the earlier movement.
No doubt, In the long term , it will be another Rolex classic, but it has already had modifications, and right now I am in no rush to leave the 3135 behind. And as I change watches often, the longer power reserve hardly matters. I certainly wouldn't let the new movement dictate which model I bought. All Rolex movements are superb.
Agreed.
I think that ultimately we have to trust that Rolex will get it right. Eventually.
After all their reputation is at stake.

The Daniels escapement is still being tweaked after early lubrication problems and new movements are being designed around it to optimise it's potential.
Dirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 July 2017, 10:47 AM   #39
mikkolopez
"TRF" Member
 
mikkolopez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Philippines
Posts: 2,301
Not a movement expert but the 70hours power reserve is good enough for me to tide over the Saturday and Sunday of not wearing the watch and just slap it on Monday.
The practical side of me.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
__________________
At my age now ...
I have SEEN everything,
I have HEARD everything,
I have even DONE everything,
I just don't REMEMBER everything.
mikkolopez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 July 2017, 08:40 PM   #40
NeoXerxes
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: USA
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirt View Post
Agreed.
I think that ultimately we have to trust that Rolex will get it right. Eventually.
After all their reputation is at stake.

The Daniels escapement is still being tweaked after early lubrication problems and new movements are being designed around it to optimise it's potential.
Like anything, there will be downsides to being a first adopter. In that regard the 3135 is a more "sure" option, since it has been improved and proven over the course of decades. On the other hand, I'd expect that Rolex would already be attempting to improve the new design after its initial rollout.

On that note, has anyone heard of significant or widespread problems with the 3235? I haven't been able to find much information on this yet.
NeoXerxes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 July 2017, 08:47 PM   #41
Dirt
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoXerxes View Post
Like anything, there will be downsides to being a first adopter. In that regard the 3135 is a more "sure" option, since it has been improved and proven over the course of decades. On the other hand, I'd expect that Rolex would already be attempting to improve the new design after its initial rollout.

On that note, has anyone heard of significant or widespread problems with the 3235? I haven't been able to find much information on this yet.
Nothing as yet, but the 3255 had a date change issue.
Touch wood, nothing serious will show up.
Dirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 July 2017, 01:46 AM   #42
Rashid.bk
"TRF" Member
 
Rashid.bk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dallas
Watch: 12800ft = 3900m
Posts: 11,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoXerxes View Post
Very true. They may not get significantly more accurate, but I'm just hoping for more resilience (magnetism and shock) and the power reserve. Those things will be enough of an improvement for me to warrant holding off on the Submariner for a year or two.

Given that they have updated the sea dweller with the new movement, I'd expect an update to the Submariner will come soon. It's not that the Sub needs an update (the current version is awesome), but the new movement will add some small improvements that are nice to have, assuming the new upgrades live up to Rolex marketing.

If I'm not mistaken, doesn't the 3235 require more "space". It has two barrels. The Seadweller morphing into a size 43 wasn't just for fashion, my understanding was also a consequence of space for the movement and considering that the SD50 has some extra beefing up for it's water resistance.

Also, its sort of comical that people are banging on Rolex's door for accuracy, magnetic and shock resistance....features Omega has been giving us for at least three years now. If you want magnetism resistance, Omega is on the leader board. Otherwise, it's really a non issue for the majority of people.

Keep in mind also that Rolex doesn't like to play nice with features across it's line. As an example, the Paraflex shock system in the Explorers. They could easily implement that in the 114060 or the GMT2 but they don't, they keep it as a feature to those models. I see the same happening with the SD50, at least for the next five years.
Rashid.bk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 July 2017, 01:56 AM   #43
D111s
"TRF" Member
 
D111s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hampshire UK
Watch: A few
Posts: 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rashid.bk View Post
If I'm not mistaken, doesn't the 3235 require more "space". It has two barrels. The Seadweller morphing into a size 43 wasn't just for fashion, my understanding was also a consequence of space for the movement and considering that the SD50 has some extra beefing up for it's water resistance.

Also, its sort of comical that people are banging on Rolex's door for accuracy, magnetic and shock resistance....features Omega has been giving us for at least three years now. If you want magnetism resistance, Omega is on the leader board. Otherwise, it's really a non issue for the majority of people.

Keep in mind also that Rolex doesn't like to play nice with features across it's line. As an example, the Paraflex shock system in the Explorers. They could easily implement that in the 114060 or the GMT2 but they don't, they keep it as a feature to those models. I see the same happening with the SD50, at least for the next five years.


The new movement has a single barrel like the 31xx movements.
D111s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 July 2017, 02:55 AM   #44
eonflux
"TRF" Member
 
eonflux's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: SNA
Posts: 3,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rashid.bk View Post
If I'm not mistaken, doesn't the 3235 require more "space". It has two barrels. The Seadweller morphing into a size 43 wasn't just for fashion, my understanding was also a consequence of space for the movement and considering that the SD50 has some extra beefing up for it's water resistance.

Also, its sort of comical that people are banging on Rolex's door for accuracy, magnetic and shock resistance....features Omega has been giving us for at least three years now. If you want magnetism resistance, Omega is on the leader board. Otherwise, it's really a non issue for the majority of people.

Keep in mind also that Rolex doesn't like to play nice with features across it's line. As an example, the Paraflex shock system in the Explorers. They could easily implement that in the 114060 or the GMT2 but they don't, they keep it as a feature to those models. I see the same happening with the SD50, at least for the next five years.
My understanding is that the 3135 and 3235 have the same diameter = 28.5 mm

I don't know if the 3235 is taller (thicker) than the 3135, though

I doubt the increased size (diameter) of the SD43 has anything to do with water resistance given the first ceramic SD is smaller in width with the same WR rating

My guess is that the 3235 could simply replace a 3135, and if correct, then Rolex could simply put the 3235 into a SubC or DSSD
But who knows when that would happen?
eonflux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 July 2017, 03:04 AM   #45
JP Chestnut
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Ann Arbor MI
Watch: Rolex Ref 16600
Posts: 3,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rashid.bk View Post
If I'm not mistaken, doesn't the 3235 require more "space". It has two barrels. The Seadweller morphing into a size 43 wasn't just for fashion, my understanding was also a consequence of space for the movement and considering that the SD50 has some extra beefing up for it's water resistance.

Also, its sort of comical that people are banging on Rolex's door for accuracy, magnetic and shock resistance....features Omega has been giving us for at least three years now. If you want magnetism resistance, Omega is on the leader board. Otherwise, it's really a non issue for the majority of people.

Keep in mind also that Rolex doesn't like to play nice with features across it's line. As an example, the Paraflex shock system in the Explorers. They could easily implement that in the 114060 or the GMT2 but they don't, they keep it as a feature to those models. I see the same happening with the SD50, at least for the next five years.
The increase in size is 100% fashion. There's no functional reason.
JP Chestnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 July 2017, 09:18 AM   #46
Dirt
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by eonflux View Post
My understanding is that the 3135 and 3235 have the same diameter = 28.5 mm

I don't know if the 3235 is taller (thicker) than the 3135, though

I doubt the increased size (diameter) of the SD43 has anything to do with water resistance given the first ceramic SD is smaller in width with the same WR rating

My guess is that the 3235 could simply replace a 3135, and if correct, then Rolex could simply put the 3235 into a SubC or DSSD
But who knows when that would happen?
As far as I know the new movement can't be retrofitted into an older case that originally had a 3135.
From memory I think It's the same diameter which would help with tooling/production, but it's a little thinner.
Dirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 July 2017, 09:23 AM   #47
Dirt
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by D111s View Post
The new movement has a single barrel like the 31xx movements.
And that's the beauty of Rolex.
They are able to extend the power reserve to approximate that of another well known brand's newest high-tech movements equipped with twin Spring barrels, all whilst keeping it compact and in a simple single barrel format.

Rolex rules
Dirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 July 2017, 09:35 AM   #48
Dirt
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rashid.bk View Post
If I'm not mistaken, doesn't the 3235 require more "space". It has two barrels. The Seadweller morphing into a size 43 wasn't just for fashion, my understanding was also a consequence of space for the movement and considering that the SD50 has some extra beefing up for it's water resistance.

Also, its sort of comical that people are banging on Rolex's door for accuracy, magnetic and shock resistance....features Omega has been giving us for at least three years now. If you want magnetism resistance, Omega is on the leader board. Otherwise, it's really a non issue for the majority of people.

Keep in mind also that Rolex doesn't like to play nice with features across it's line. As an example, the Paraflex shock system in the Explorers. They could easily implement that in the 114060 or the GMT2 but they don't, they keep it as a feature to those models. I see the same happening with the SD50, at least for the next five years.
In all practicality, there's no real difference in accurately measurable terms between the Kif shock protection and the newer Paraflex system.
The same probably applies to the Diashock and Incablock systems.

Paraflex i' just a way for Rolex to differentiate its technology and give them another marketing tool.
Perhaps there are some disadvantages between them all but for every disadvantage there's always an advantage.
Maybe one is easier to use when servicing?
Though I think I may have read somewhere that the Rolex system offers a small technical or theoretical benefit over the others.
We as end consumers will never ever know.

Perhaps a suitably experienced Watchmaker could weigh in on the issue and give us some valid insight?
Dirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 July 2017, 06:12 PM   #49
eonflux
"TRF" Member
 
eonflux's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: SNA
Posts: 3,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirt View Post
As far as I know the new movement can't be retrofitted into an older case that originally had a 3135.
From memory I think It's the same diameter which would help with tooling/production, but it's a little thinner.
Thought I heard that the 3186 is a little taller than the 3185, but some 3186 movements were used in later GMT2 non-ceramic models
But perhaps what I heard was incorrect

If a 3235 can't simply replace a 3135 in a Sub, then that means it'll be a while before the Sub gets a 3235
I can't see Rolex making non-visible case changes just to switch the movement
Would make more sense to bring out a new Sub, and given the history of Sub model changes, will be likely be a while for that to happen
eonflux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 July 2017, 10:27 PM   #50
Dirt
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by eonflux View Post
Thought I heard that the 3186 is a little taller than the 3185, but some 3186 movements were used in later GMT2 non-ceramic models
But perhaps what I heard was incorrect

If a 3235 can't simply replace a 3135 in a Sub, then that means it'll be a while before the Sub gets a 3235
I can't see Rolex making non-visible case changes just to switch the movement
Would make more sense to bring out a new Sub, and given the history of Sub model changes, will be likely be a while for that to happen
Not necessarily.
If I'm right about the diameter being the same then it only means the depth of the machining of the recess will be slightly different. It will be just a few clicks on a mouse to change it.
Maybe the vertical position of the Crown will be different as well, but with CAD it's an easy alteration to accommodate the new movement.

I do wonder if the dials are made differently to stop people retrofitting earlier dials into the later watches with the new movement and visa versa.
Even the location of the pins on the back of the dials being in a different position would be enough to stop any shenanigans.
Dirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22 July 2017, 11:16 PM   #51
Bostonbert
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Boston
Posts: 69
3235 magnetism resistance

I have a Milgauss GV and the Omega 15'000 Gauss because I work in medical diagnostics & high magnetism is a daily occupational hazard for my watches. I have been looking for a spec on the magnetism resistance of the new 3235 movement without success. Has anyone tried the type of test shown in the attached YouTube with the new datejust or a day date with the 3255 or the Red Sea dweller? I find the omega's magnetism resistance is overkill for me (the Milgauss has enough) and the Milgauss is much more accurate than the Omega so if the new datejust 41 is close to matching the Omega 15'000 Gauss in resistance, I'd trade my Omega in for a new Rolex datejust 41.

https://youtu.be/elq8p8ZVCUk
Bostonbert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 July 2017, 01:19 AM   #52
Bostonbert
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Boston
Posts: 69
What is the magnetism resistance level of the 3235 movement?
Bostonbert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 July 2017, 04:28 AM   #53
Toivonen
"TRF" Member
 
Toivonen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Real Name: Vittorio
Location: Italy
Watch: SeaDweller Deepsea
Posts: 973
After servicing, my SDDS is -40 in 21 Days ;)
__________________
No HEV? No Party!!!
If you LOVE the Sea Dweller... Join the "BDV"
https://www.instagram.com/bandadellavalvola/
https://www.facebook.com/bandadellavalvola/
http://orologi.forumfree.it/?t=75294392
Toivonen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 July 2017, 04:36 AM   #54
uansari1
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Doha, Qatar
Watch: Polar 16570
Posts: 535
Quote:
Originally Posted by henry333 View Post
Rotor bearing just makes the watch more louder when you move the watch around.
Well .. at least when compare to the 3135 .
What's the advantages?
3135 is hard to beat besides the extra power reserves
The ball bearing rotor on my Omega SMPc is silent. I don't have any experience with Rolex movements with ball bearing rotor assemblies, but I can't imagine it being loud lol
__________________
Explorer II 16570 Polar (3186)
GMT Master II 116710LN
GMT Master II 126710BLRO (jubilee)
Explorer 124270
Omega Seamaster GMT 50th Anniversary
uansari1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 July 2017, 06:59 AM   #55
torifile
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Durham NC
Posts: 373
Well the 3135 in my SubC is +0 seconds is in 4 days.
torifile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 July 2017, 07:10 AM   #56
Hawaii2017
"TRF" Member
 
Hawaii2017's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Canada
Watch: DJ36mm ref. 16233
Posts: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by HorologyK View Post
3235 is better
Co'z of the extra power reserve, now accuracy? Let the debacle begin.

Caliber 3135 is long proven for accuracy....Time will tell if 3235 will be the same. I can live with 48-50 hour reserve no problem there.
Hawaii2017 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 July 2017, 07:51 AM   #57
Canefan1
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Homestead
Posts: 1,247
Glad I don't worry about this stuff, I got all I can handle with the Gold.
Canefan1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6 September 2017, 03:50 AM   #58
yessir69
2024 Pledge Member
 
yessir69's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Real Name: Kevin
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 3,200
Just to update the thread, I've had my DJ41 with the 3235 movement for thirty days now and it's gained a total of 15 seconds. According to my laser like calculations, that's about a half second a day. It's by far the most accurate mechanical watch I've ever owned.
yessir69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6 September 2017, 04:17 AM   #59
Swiss Mad!
"TRF" Member
 
Swiss Mad!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Real Name: Max
Location: UK
Watch: Various
Posts: 3,722
Extract from the Rolex website about the 3235...

It incorporates the new Chronergy escapement patented by Rolex, which combines high energy efficiency with great dependability. Made of nickel-phosphorus, it is also insensitive to magnetic interference. An optimized blue Parachrom hairspring is fitted to the oscillator, the true heart of the watch. Patented and manufactured by Rolex in an exclusive paramagnetic alloy, it is up to 10 times more precise than a traditional hairspring in case of shocks. A Rolex overcoil ensures its regularity in any position. Calibre 3235 is equipped with a self-winding module via a Perpetual rotor. Thanks to its new barrel architecture and the escapement’s superior efficiency, the power reserve of calibre 3235 extends to approximately 70 hours.
Swiss Mad! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 September 2018, 11:34 AM   #60
sleadrider
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Dallas
Watch: DateJust
Posts: 6
I am at 92 days and i am -3. But can bring it back to zero in 3 days by placing it crown down while i sleep at night.
sleadrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Takuya Watches

Bobs Watches

My Watch LLC

OCWatches

DavidSW Watches

Coronet


*Banners Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.





Copyright ©2004-2024, The Rolex Forums. All Rights Reserved.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rolex is a registered trademark of ROLEX USA. The Rolex Forums is not affiliated with ROLEX USA in any way.