My Experience with my GMT II Ceramic Reliability

[themast]

I have owned the watch since 2013, brand new and purchased from an AD. I wear it about 50 days a year. It is not a safe queen but I don't abuse it either.

In 2020 the mainspring failed. One could argue that a service was due anyway and I believe the mainspring is part of regular service.
https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=752380

Just recently, the clock spring failed. Rik Dietel did the job, always a pleasure working with him. Perhaps I should have asked him to replace it when I did the service in 2020 since I already knew this was a common issue on 3186 movements. Rik said that he installed the updated part now.
https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=471998 (not my thread, but in case anybody is interested).

So there you have it, my data point. Good, bad, normal? I am not sure what to make of it. As a complex mechanical system, I am inclined to say "normal".

[S.Explorer]

I'm going to say not that good on the mainspring given you only wore it about 50 days a year, but it made it out of the warranty period so it did fine.

[alphadweller]

Not good for a watch worn once a week and looked after. Does it sit on a winder when not worn?

[themast]

Originally Posted by alphadweller

Not good for a watch worn once a week and looked after. Does it sit on a winder when not worn?

Nope. I was thinking that perhaps that is a contributing factor to the clock spring failure since often when I wear it I have to go though many dates to properly set it. If watch was on the winder, the number of clock spring engagements would be significantly reduced (but other components would be exercised more often).

[Gazoak]

I don't think it sounds good. I would say you have been unlucky.

I wore my 16710 daily from 2002 - 2012 with no issues and still wear it now in rotation.

[DJ2020]

I would not expect a mechanical watch to fail in just 7 years. Especially only worn 50 hours a year (350 hours). No question the "sitting " may have contributed to the failure but unlikely. Many watches sit for extended periods of time with no issues. Maybe accuracy but that's about it. IMO. Unless other contributing factors are envoled. Like water engress or the like.

[Cigars&Watches]

Thanks for sharing

[minute_man]

My now gone 116710LN worked (near) flawlessly through 5 years of almost daily wear and frequent (sometimes daily) time zone changes. I did experience a date change failure once or twice during its 1st year but the problem never came back. Timekeeping settled at +1,5"/day and had no power reserve issues.

[WatchGuy1966]

Originally Posted by DJ2020

I would not expect a mechanical watch to fail in just 7 years. Especially only worn 50 hours a year (350 hours). No question the "sitting " may have contributed to the failure but unlikely. Many watches sit for extended periods of time with no issues. Maybe accuracy but that's about it. IMO. Unless other contributing factors are envoled. Like water engress or the like.

He said 50 days.

But, your point is the same. I would not expect failure with rare usage.

[themast]

Originally Posted by Gazoak

I don't think it sounds good. I would say you have been unlucky.

I wore my 16710 daily from 2002 - 2012 with no issues and still wear it now in rotation.

Perhaps my watch was more toward the tail of the distribution. Let's see how the next 10 years go!?

Originally Posted by DJ2020

I would not expect a mechanical watch to fail in just 7 years. Especially only worn 50 hours a year (350 hours). No question the "sitting " may have contributed to the failure but unlikely. Many watches sit for extended periods of time with no issues. Maybe accuracy but that's about it. IMO. Unless other contributing factors are envoled. Like water engress or the like.

It is about 50 days not hours a year. Watch was never dropped and never saw water (inside). I swim with it a few times a year but nothing extreme.

[enjoythemusic]

Agree themast, it's normal on a broad scale. Sure we hear of 25-year-old mechanical timepieces that miraculously work great, and some out of box fails too. Guess the real question is, when was the updated spring a known issue (which leads to was it before your mainspring fix).

[dannyp]

Honestly, I think the biggest failing was the shop not replacing the click spring proactively at service. The original design is a known weak point on that movement and once an improved version was developed there was a directive to all RSC to replace at service no matter what.

So the second servicing shouldn't have been needed as the problem should have been proactively fixed with the first. As for the mainspring, I have nothing to add... Maybe the fact that the watch is manually wound from a dead stop each time it's worn matters? Not sure.

[envuks]

I had the opposite experience. I purchased a 116710 in 2008 shortly after they came out. I wore it everyday for 10 years until I changed my collection around in 2018 to a 116718 and 116500.

My 116710 was perfect. I wore the heck out of it. Did everything in it. It was well worn. I had it serviced and it back back looking new. I then parted with it.

Great watch


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Laostuh]

For context, I own a GMT II Ceramic purchased new from AD in 2017. I wear it about 2-3 times a week. No issues so far..

[Rick_Nashville]

Another owner story. I purchased a 116710LN new from an AD in 2010. It is worn several weeks per year, every year since then. I had it on a few weeks ago. It is still operatingly smoothly and flawlessly after 12 years @ +5 secs/day (even better when rested crown up over night). It's a fantastically handsome and satisfying watch to wear.

[themast]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

Agree themast, it's normal on a broad scale. Sure we hear of 25-year-old mechanical timepieces that miraculously work great, and some out of box fails too. Guess the real question is, when was the updated spring a known issue (which leads to was it before your mainspring fix).

Originally Posted by dannyp

Honestly, I think the biggest failing was the shop not replacing the click spring proactively at service. The original design is a known weak point on that movement and once an improved version was developed there was a directive to all RSC to replace at service no matter what.

So the second servicing shouldn't have been needed as the problem should have been proactively fixed with the first. As for the mainspring, I have nothing to add... Maybe the fact that the watch is manually wound from a dead stop each time it's worn matters? Not sure.

I had the same thoughts however I did not complain with Rik about it. Perhaps I could have, but it is also true that not every single click spring has failed out there (as other members in this thread can attest), and if he had proposed to me to change it the first time I may have felt that was upselling on his part.

Anyway it is done now. I guess the takeaway for anybody with an older 116710 (I think I have read that the part was updated sometime in 2014) is to ensure that the click spring is replaced with newer part at time of service.

[Srct]

I have one of the early GMTC’s from 2007 - worn most days ( now by my partner who claimed it ) has not been serviced and still keeps great time - it’s a fantastic watch and for me super reliable

[Ron P]

In a service at an official RSC the “clockspring and wheel would have been replaced by default.