What's your thoughts on this Rolex Sea-Dweller, ref. 16600, calibre 3135 project?

[VWatchie]

Yet another Rolex has landed on my bench — this time a Sea-Dweller, ref. 16600, equipped with the trusty calibre 3135, the same calibre as the last one I worked on. The time and date settings are completely dead. I guess the yoke has slipped out of engagement with the sliding pinion. It remains to be investigated. If that is the case, it certainly makes you wonder how it can occur, considering the outstanding quality of these movements. Perhaps it was subjected to trauma? Perhaps a sloppy assembly of the keyless works?

However, it is running very well. A you can see, the maximum delta is seven seconds. The maximum acceptable delta for this movement, as specified by Rolex, is 10 seconds. The average rate fully wound in five positions (crown down, left, up, dial up, and dial down) is 1.8 seconds per day. The rate tolerance as specified by Rolex is -2/+4 s/d. So it's all looking pretty perfect.

What's very strange, though, and something I can't get my head around, is that the first time I measured it on my timing machine, fully wound (I could hear the mainspring slip in small steps while being wound), it performed quite poorly. The rates and beat errors were fine, but the horizontal amplitudes were around 235°, and the vertical amplitudes were all below 200°, which is the minimum amplitude as specified by Rolex after 24h. Performing that poorly, being fully wound, I felt it wasn't much use to measure it again after 24h. However, to be thorough, I nevertheless did and to my astonishment, I got the results as seen in the table above - "Fully wound minus 24h (Not Serviced)" - At that point, I decided to give the watch another full wind and take another measurement, and I got the results as seen in the above table - "Fully wound (Not Serviced)". If anyone has any idea about why I got such a poor performance the first time around, please let me know!

As can be seen, the oil beneath the cap jewel is noticeably depleting. If it wasn't for the faulty date and time setting, I think this amazing watch could have been left alone for another year or two, but considering it has to be repaired, why not service it as well? Especially considering the funny behaviour in amplitude I described in the previous paragraph. What do you think? All opinions are appreciated, but if one of our much-appreciated pros, such as  @Jon, @JohnR725, @nickelsilver, or @nevenbekriev could weigh in, I'm sure it would be appreciated by many.

The fit between the bracelet ends and the lugs was very tight, and I couldn't get the bracelet out by simply pressing the spring bar from one side through the drilled lugs. I'm sure there's an original Rolex tool for it unavailable to enthusiasts, and even so would cost a small fortune.

During the years, I've bought a small fortune worth of tools. Some of those tools have been a complete disappointment and a waste of money, such as the spring bar tool in the picture, which I've never used and have been meaning to resell for a long time. However, as I couldn't get the bracelet out, I came to think of it, and cut myself two pieces of brass rod, deburred and polished the ends, bent them and inserted them in the tool. It worked like a charm. I’ve got to say, I’m kind of proud of this little bit of brilliance. If I’d read something like this when I was just starting, eight or nine years ago, I would’ve been super impressed. Especially considering I could barely tell which end of a screwdriver to use back then. Okay, maybe I’m exaggerating a bit, but you get the gist!

I just hate it when you can't unscrew the case back by using a rubber ball. Is it really necessary to screw the case back on so hard? It's a sincere question. Maybe it is necessary for a true diver's watch like this Sea-Dweller. Fortunately, I had the right size, a number five Rolex die in my set.

Getting the case back off, I had to bring out the "Big Gun". Even so, I had to apply what felt like an insane amount of force. I actually worried the tool might break, and it was not a pleasant experience. So, two thumbs down for the previous repairer, who...

...also decided it was necessary to scratch up the inside of the case back lid, which likely halves its market value. I wouldn't be surprised if the same guy caused the setting problems by being sloppy while assembling the keyless works. We shall see!

I’m really looking forward to hearing your thoughts on my questions and musings!

[Kalanag]

There might be something wrong with the mainspring. I don‘t hear any slipping when I fully wind my 3135.

[VWatchie]

18 minutes ago, Kalanag said:

There might be something wrong with the mainspring. I don‘t hear any slipping when I fully wind my 3135.

That could be another sign it's up for some TLC. Perhaps too much, too little, or the wrong type of grease was applied to the barrel walls. Perhaps it occasionally slips too much, which could explain the funny initial timing machine readings. Thanks for the input!

On second thought, probably not, as it was doing perfectly 24 hours later... Hmm...

Perhaps there is some debris floating inside, getting caught and uncaught between some teeth and pinion leaves!?

If there is one thing I’ve truly learned over the years, it’s that you must be extremely meticulous about cleanliness and observant of different types of debris that can end up in the movement, such as dust, skin flakes, clothing fibers, etc.

Edited April 27 by VWatchie

[JohnR725]

6 hours ago, VWatchie said:

Is it really necessary to screw the case back on so hard?

isn't it nice to have a decent case open or when the case doesn't want to be opened? In the case of a Rolex watch that supposed to pass specific water resistant testing you probably do need to tighten the back down. But they shouldn't be tightened so much that they risk stripping the threads out. Then the other problem that comes up is the gaskets can start to disintegrate and then getting the back off can be quite a challenge unless you have a really good tool and perhaps some penetrating oil to loosen things up.

Yes really nice case marking. When I was in school we were taught to mark the cases and  the American watch and clockmakers Institute even had a? So if you joined at one time they would give you an identification number. They were explaining or giving an example of if the watches ever found in you have a unique number they can perhaps figure out the history of the watch or identify the body it's attached to for instance not that that probably comes up that often. So you got a unique number and even made a special metal stamp that you can purchase. It wasn't a super big aggressive stamp but still it left a mark in the back of the case.

Then I heard from people at work on Rolex watches they were using a felt pen indelible but later on they decided that was bad because apparently the ink could release  chemicals although it seems like once it's dry that shouldn't be an issue. Then of course today was nice is you can keep computer records sealed have to mark anything at all I personally find it's best to leave no reference behind that you were even there. Especially when you have a beautiful watch that has no markings at all and now it has your scribbling all over it not good

6 hours ago, VWatchie said:

but considering it has to be repaired, why not service it as well? Especially considering the funny behaviour in amplitude I described in the previous paragraph. What do you think?

typically if there is a typical and watch repair?  a lot of minor repairs you don't need to do a complete servicing. But beyond a certain point you're going to have to take apart a lot of stuff you're going to disrupt the lubrication even if it looks perfect right now and yes you might as well just go ahead the service the whole thing. also in a watch like this where a lot of things seem to be going on the complete service would be better then you'll know exactly where you stand versus dealing with unknown mysteries for prior repair.

[VWatchie]

Thanks @JohnR725! Everything you say makes a lot of sense and is encouraging to read.

[SwissSeiko]

What are your thoughts @VWatchie on adding your service marks to the inside case? I have 2 methods. The first being, if there are already engraved marks from previous services, then ill add mine engraved as well. Kind of tells a story. The other being, if I'm the first one to service it, ill use a fine point sharpie instead, so as not to be the first one to scratch it up. I do like when there are service marks, as it can kind of help me gauge how much I should be examining the movement, before I send my quote out. I found 13 on a vintage Hamilton I service recently, so that's the current high score.

[ColinC]

On 4/27/2025 at 3:35 PM, VWatchie said:

"Fully wound (Not Serviced)". If anyone has any idea about why I got such a poor performance the first time around, please let me know!

How long had it been without any wind before you first put it on the timegrapher?  Perhaps there was some debris / old lubricant that loosened up while you were waiting to do the 24 hour reading?
I recently serviced a Seiko 6319 that immediately after service was absolutely horrible on the timegrapher - 24 hours later (without me doing anything) it was rock solid!  I was a little surprised by this (as I have seen improvements in amplitude after letting it run in but never a watch going from useless to great!).

I was suspicious that some dirt must still be in there so I took it apart and cleaned and lubcricated it again and had exactly the same experience - snow storm that after some hours turned into a nice straigh line with good amplitude 

Edited Monday at 02:55 PM by ColinC

[VWatchie]

35 minutes ago, SwissSeiko said:

What are your thoughts @VWatchie on adding your service marks to the inside case? I have 2 methods. The first being, if there are already engraved marks from previous services, then ill add mine engraved as well. Kind of tells a story. The other being, if I'm the first one to service it, ill use a fine point sharpie instead, so as not to be the first one to scratch it up. I do like when there are service marks, as it can kind of help me gauge how much I should be examining the movement, before I send my quote out. I found 13 on a vintage Hamilton I service recently, so that's the current high score.

Well, my fundamental stance is that I want to go in and out without leaving any trace other than a shining, perfectly running movement. So, no scratchings on the inside of the case back lid, no marred screws, no debris, no fingerprints, and so on. That is, my goal is to make it impossible for the FBI to track me down.

As a professional, I suppose you might want to keep track of returning watches, but as @JohnR725 mentioned, we can keep detailed computer records without marking the watch at all. That may not be true for every watch, but luxury and COSC-certified movements do have unique numbers. John also says it’s best to leave no sign you were ever there, and I couldn't agree more.

Now, suppose the Sea-Dweller I'm working on is one day scrapped, and you want to sell the case-back separately (perhaps the case was destroyed in a plane crash). Then the scribbles on the inside no longer reflect the current movement inside the case. Also, the engraving will likely halve the market value of the case back.

59 minutes ago, ColinC said:

How long had it been without any wind before you first put it on the timegrapher?  Perhaps there was some debris / old lubricant that loosened up while you were waiting to do the 24 hour reading?

It had been "sleeping" for about a week and a half.
Yes, the "debris/old lubricant" theory is my hypothesis as well!
It will be interesting to see what I find once I have time to start disassembling the movement.

[JohnR725]

4 hours ago, VWatchie said:

That may not be true for every watch

Where I work everything incoming watches whatever detailed descriptions are taken entered into a computer program and photograph of each item. Then ideally although it depends on who's doing the paperwork detailed descriptions can be quite good other times there lacking. Like I really like it with pocket watches if they would record the serial number it avoids confusion later on. Then when watch repairs are completed that is also entered in.

It's one of the amusements I learned when I was in school instructor had a shop and commented about the important aspect of keeping detailed records of repairs. Because oftentimes a customer who got a new crystal will come back later on when the watch doesn't work and expect you to fix the entire watch for free. Then you can remind them that they just got a crystal. Strangely enough that keeps coming up or occasionally comes up where I work now.

7 hours ago, SwissSeiko said:

t can kind of help me gauge how much I should be examining the movement, before I send my quote out. I found 13 on a vintage Hamilton I service recently, so that's the current high score

One of the problems of using the service marks on the case is that in the case of pocket watches oftentimes that's not the original case. Then case marks? What I was doing warranty work for a company I used to describe a code number in the back of the case and it would tell me the next time I see the watch that basically what I did I made no attempt at keeping track of customers because we had literally thousands of them I think they sold 30,000 of these watches and they would come back by the hundreds because they had a lifetime warranty. Yes that's a story all of itself but I would put a code number that would reference what was done to the watch the last time and think I had a date in there somehow so it did tell a story if you knew the code. Another shop I once worked out the number would reference the page in the book. So other than knowing we had been in there you would have no idea what happened because you have to go look at the page in the book to see what happened.

Then the problem of how you examine a watch you should examine the watch in detail every single time to avoid complications. Although on vintage watches and this is a of amusement I have at work when people ask something and I say of the watches done when it leaves. This is because on vintage oftentimes problems won't show up until the watches much farther into the repair like it's now running and you discover things that you can't discover before because it wasn't running to discover them that also become sometimes difficult to have exact rigid prices are estimates of repairs or in the case of a pocket watch you may not find out if a casing problem to later on when you case it up in the watches running.

5 hours ago, VWatchie said:

John also says it’s best to leave no sign you were ever there, and I couldn't agree more.

I was just thinking for all those people that would like to leave a mark maybe you should learn to do what some of the past watchmakers did? Leave a mark but leave it in such a way that no one will ever find it? Typically not done for repair purposes but done for other reasons like identifying it's legit. I have a friend with a Gruen watch and one of the Roman numbers the bottom line that just looks like a line under extreme magnification actually says Gruen watch company or something equivalent. So here's a link showing how to mark your watch without being seen although that's not the actual title. So if you can learn micro engraving you can engrave the watch someplace probably just about any place you just have to remember where you put it.

https://cnaluxury.channelnewsasia.com/obsessions/how-to-prove-if-watches-are-authentic-secret-signatures-182516

 

[VWatchie]

I spent a few hours with this 3135 Rolex yesterday, and as we can all see, the reason the date and time can't be set is obvious.

Had I known this—I was expecting a dislocated yoke—I would have refrained from running it, as we have no idea where those broken-off teeth are located inside the movement. It could very well explain the funny timing machine readings.

Hopefully, the damage is limited to the first (there are two) setting wheel, but we shall see as the disassembly continues. It's a good sign that the sliding pinion teeth seem to be intact.

It also raises the question of how something like this can happen. Perhaps too little or the wrong type of grease in the cannon pinion, and when it became difficult to set the time, the crown was turned with force and too quickly. That reminds me of another movement (years ago) where the cannon pinion was way too tight, and I still tried to set time, which broke off the teeth on the minute wheel. However, it was a scrap Vostok, so no real harm done.

[rehajm]

2 hours ago, VWatchie said:

It also raises the question of how something like this can happen.

The 268 mechanism cover has this gear that’s friction fit to a post and like a cannon pinion it can become loose, creating too much slack and allowing for improper meshing. Instead of the broken setting wheel I often see broken teeth on the gear underneath. This is from the last 3135 I serviced…

…it’s really kind of a poorly designed part…and why is it all one part?

…and on this one I never found the missing tooth. Did the previous service provider just replace this broken part?

Edited yesterday at 01:01 PM by rehajm

[VWatchie]

Thanks for sharing @rehajm! It will be really interesting to see what I find once I get the time to continue the disassembly. I wouldn't be surprised if the broken setting wheel isn't the only part that will have to be replaced/repaired.

[JohnR725]

On 4/27/2025 at 6:35 AM, VWatchie said:

As can be seen, the oil beneath the cap jewel is noticeably depleting. If it wasn't for the faulty date and time setting, I think this amazing watch could have been left alone for another year or two, but considering it has to be repaired, why not service it as well? Especially considering the funny behaviour in amplitude I described in the previous paragraph. What do you think?

10 hours ago, VWatchie said:

Had I known this—I was expecting

Up above you asked a question now you have the answer. Well at least one of the answers why should give you a complete servicing auto wash that just needs possibly may be a minor repair?

It's one of the frustrations I have with repairing pocket watches occasionally they look like they might just need cleaning but along the way additional complications can come up. Or even after it's all serviced casing issues will come up. Where I can never really give anybody a hard clear answer of when is this watch going to be done other than the say when it leaves whenever that may be.

 

8 hours ago, rehajm said:

The 268 mechanism cover has this gear that’s friction fit to a post and like a cannon pinion it can become loose, creating too much slack and allowing for improper meshing. Instead of the broken setting wheel I often see broken teeth on the gear underneath. This is from the last 3135 I serviced…

One of the annoying thing is in watch repair is the lack of proper technical documentation. So for instance for the 3135 there's a really beautiful color document explaining everything except does it really explain everything?

Often times watch companies have supplemental information on specific tasks. They definitely have supplemental on lubrication. Or Omega will have general instructions sheets for specific a grouping of calibers covering well stuff like this unique situations that require either changing components or special lubrication or something. So in the case of Rolex to does upgrade components it would be really nice if we had the supplemental information that we do not. As conceivably this was covered the writer problems here might've been covered with upgrade components or some documentation specifying lubrication that would be better somehow etc.

[VWatchie]

14 hours ago, JohnR725 said:

Where I can never really give anybody a hard clear answer of when is this watch going to be done other than the say when it leaves whenever that may be.

One of the blessings of being an enthusiast is that I can spend whatever time I need on a watch to make it work as well as I can. Before I take on anyone's watch, I always tell them that I can't promise anything about how long it may take and what costs it might bring. Of course, any additional costs must be agreed upon. As you indicate, it's only when you're done that you know for a fact what time was required and the cost. It's the same pattern as with any complex undertaking, and repairing watches can be complex, even very complex.

14 hours ago, JohnR725 said:

One of the annoying thing is in watch repair is the lack of proper technical documentation. So for instance for the 3135 there's a really beautiful color document explaining everything except does it really explain everything?

No, far from it. The secrecy from the big brands is honestly one of the most frustrating parts of this hobby. Even when you do manage to get hold of service manuals, they’re often missing crucial details—things like lubrication points or even just the safest way to disassemble and assemble certain components. Luckily, WRT exist, and over time you build up the knowledge and experience to work around the gaps. Sharing tips and hard-earned tricks here makes a huge difference.

The secrecy itself seems to be part of the business model. Take the Rolex 3135 as an example—rather than clearly explaining how to safely remove the date ring in publicly available documentation, Rolex sells pricey training programs and certifications to their authorised service centres. And who ends up paying for that in the end? The customers, because independent watchmakers and passionate amateurs are pushed out. It’s a shame, really.

If the car industry operated like this, the backlash would be huge.

Edited 12 hours ago by VWatchie

[rehajm]

Though I mostly do vintage I can’t say I’ve benefitted greatly from any company’s technical documents. Is anything in them infinitely superior to WOSTEP or AWCI? Maybe knowing details of purple winding gears and I guess epilame on all those other parts is fun…I still pull them and read when I can fine them I suppose …

[JohnR725]

48 minutes ago, rehajm said:

I mostly do vintage I can’t say I’ve benefitted greatly from any company’s technical documents. Is anything in them infinitely superior to WOSTEP or AWCI?

Depending upon how vintage it is there is no technical documentation to benefit from and very likely never was.

Interesting comparison of ? So you're comparing a school and A association with classes to specific technical documentation specifically for specific watches or other documentation? I'm not quite sure how you would actually make that kind of a comparison

On the other hand maybe it's because something is missing in your quote

1 hour ago, VWatchie said:

Even when you do manage to get hold of service manuals, they’re often missing crucial details

Oh other things that are missing from service manuals would be a lot of the early manuals when they were scanned PDFs were specifically scanned for parts only. So a lot of so-called service manuals have no servicing because it was not scanned.

Evolution of technical service documentation is quite interesting. It also depends upon the particular company. Some companies the technical documentation is very poor because they assume you're skilled watchmaker you don't need technical documentation. Or maybe they only have aspects of some specific watch and nothing else.

Then one of the problems we have in this discussion is if you've never seen what you're missing then you would not know and you might even perceived by not knowing that you're better off without it?

For instance many years ago I purchased a watchmaker's estate. In there was omega technical documentation because he ran a jewelry store that sold Omega watches. So there's a few technical documents not overly impressive because Omega assumed your watchmaker and they don't have to give you a detailed about anything. typically the servicing would only cover interesting things and just general suggestions on lubrication.

But what I was going to the documentation I found something interesting especially because involved lubrication which I find interesting. I've attached it is a PDF as you can see it covers oiling Omega and of course cleaning because you have to have a clean watch to oil it. I think this was my first exposure to supplemental information as I will call it not found in the general instructions. Oh and pay attention to the lubrication for the keyless I really don't understand why the Swiss goes so insanely lite for lubrication there.

Evolution of documentation now cousins has working instructions the cover mostly generic general stuff there is a few specific calibers referred to in the working instruction but mainly it's just general stuff. Before cousins lost access they did obtain a few of the working instructions found at the link below.

https://www.cousinsuk.com/document/search?SearchString=Working

Here is an example of what happens if you're missing something? Omega also has general instructions for groupings of calibers work covers specific things related to that caliber. This information a course is not found in the general service documents if they even had general service documents a lot of times they do not they just have a parts list. So the specifically covering things that you really need to know and if you don't have this well?

For instance there is an older discussion from 2018 but a couple weeks ago it came to life. Somebody was having a problem they fix the problem there very happy at least for now because the problem will come back as they haven't fixed the problem at all. If they had read the general instruction which they did not because they do not have access to it they would discover that putting the hands on his critical how you are supposed to do it because of you don't do it the way you're supposed to the end up with the exact problem you have here a damaged sweep pinion.

 

 

Oiling Omega watches 1957.PDF

[Jon]

On 5/2/2025 at 1:17 PM, rehajm said:

it’s really kind of a poorly designed part…and why is it all one part?

I think it is quite elegantly designed and provides a safety mechanism for the quickset operation, so if you try to use quickset just before or after the date change this will slip and not break the calendar wheel tooth. It has to be parted and lubricated properly so it has the ability to slip.

The service manual shows how to do that in the last pic

 

 

[rehajm]

…that sure sounds nice Jon yet  I’m two for two single owner Rollies ‘professionally’ serviced with that little gear missing teeth. I found the teeth in one and  on the second the tooth is missing. Here’s a third from watchie. We could be the only ones but I’m not buying it…

2 hours ago, JohnR725 said:

I'm not quite sure how you would actually make that kind of a comparison

If it were someone else here I’d be confused how they would be confused. It’s a valid comparison. They all offer recommendations on how to service movements including order of assembly, lubrication- how much and where, etc., they sometimes differ and sometimes manufacturer advice is just weird…

…also, these designers are the same people that brought us this…

…the defense rests. 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by rehajm

[VWatchie]

In my daily work as a .NET teacher and programmer, I use ChatGPT all the time, and it works beyond all expectations. It's mind-blowingly good! So, am I a fool to ask ChatGPT about the Calibre 3135 I'm currently working on? Well, I did, and I'm in shock. Please let me know what you think. Is ChatGPT simply shooting from the hip, or could there be even a sliver of truth behind its bold claims? For example, it claims it sees Incabloc, but we can clearly see KIF. However, overall, ChatGPT is clearly negative to the movement in the images I uploaded (see below). I still think I'm working on a genuine 3135, but I'm not sure I'm going to sleep very well tonight. Sure, it's not my watch, but I just hate clones.

You said:
I'm servicing and repairing a Rolex Sea-Dweller ref. 16600. However, on the movement cal. 3135, I have found some blued screws, for example holding the date indicator seating in place. As far as I know, Rolex never use blued screws. Could this be a fake/clone movement? Would a picture help?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, a picture would definitely help—please upload a clear, close-up photo of the blued screws and the surrounding components. That will make it easier to assess whether the movement is genuine or a clone.

You're absolutely right that Rolex does not use blued screws in the 3135 movement or any modern movement. Their screws are typically polished steel, sometimes rhodium-plated, but never heat-blued like you’d find in vintage pocket watches or some decorative movements. If you're seeing bright blue or deep purple screws, that's highly suspicious.

Here are a few possibilities:

Aftermarket modification – Someone may have serviced the movement and replaced original screws with decorative ones (unusual and bad practice for a Rolex).

Parts swap – It's possible the movement has been assembled from mixed sources, using parts from clones or aftermarket kits.

Clone movement – Some high-end replica watches use cloned 3135 movements with visible differences, and blued screws are a common telltale sign in fakes.

Chinese “Super Clone” movements – These often mimic the 3135 quite closely but include blue screws and other subtle giveaways like inferior finishing, incorrect jewel placement, or engraving differences.

If you can, try to also capture:

The engravings under the balance wheel (bridge number).

The layout of the automatic winding bridge.

Any serial or caliber markings.

Would you like a side-by-side comparison checklist between a genuine 3135 and a common clone?

You said:

ChatGPT said:

Thanks for the excellent photos.

Based on what I can see:

1. Blued Screws (First Image)

The screws are clearly heat-blued, not chemically colored or anodized. These are not standard for any Rolex 3135 component—Rolex does not use blued screws in modern movements, especially not for the date indicator seating. This alone is a major red flag.

2. Movement Plate (Second Image)

The finishing is quite neat at first glance, with perlage (circular graining) that mimics Rolex’s 3135 layout. However, several things suggest this movement is not a genuine Rolex 3135:

Notable signs of a likely clone:

The perlage is too uniform and "machine-perfect"; Rolex finishing is more subtly varied.

The bridge edges are not properly beveled or polished—Rolex does this meticulously.

The screw heads are mirror-polished, but the slots show machining burrs and inconsistency, which would never pass Rolex QC.

Blued screws are visible on the lower plate (again: never used by Rolex).

The gearwork (e.g., date jumper and star wheel) looks coarser than the precision finishing expected from a 3135.

Tentative conclusion:

This movement appears to be a high-quality clone of the Rolex 3135—possibly from a replica Sea-Dweller 16600. These clones are sometimes called “super clones” or “3135 look-alikes,” and some are visually quite convincing until you inspect the movement up close, as you've done.

Next Steps:

If you want to confirm definitively, here’s what you can do:

Check the balance cock engraving (should say "3135" and have the Rolex crown).

Inspect the mainplate under the dial for “Rolex” markings and engravings—genuine ones are laser-etched.

Look under the rotor (if still attached)—genuine rotors have distinct Rolex markings and finish.

Would you like a close visual comparison between this and a confirmed authentic 3135 movement?

You said:

If I upload a picture of the rotor (underside) can you help me assess if it's real or fake?

ChatGPT said:

Absolutely—please go ahead and upload the picture of the rotor (underside). I’ll compare it against known details from genuine Rolex 3135 rotors and highlight any inconsistencies that may point to it being fake or aftermarket.

You said:

ChatGPT said:

Thanks. This underside view of the rotor reveals clear signs that this is not a genuine Rolex 3135 rotor:

Key indicators of a fake or clone rotor:

1. Rotor Weight Design

The Rolex 3135 rotor has a solid bimetal construction: a 22k gold outer weight laser-welded to a nickel base. This one appears to be entirely steel-colored—no trace of gold, and the weight appears milled rather than bonded. That’s a strong sign it’s not genuine.

2. Milling Marks and Finishing

The milling marks on your rotor are radial and rough, typical of CNC-machined clone parts. A genuine 3135 rotor shows:

A clean, uniform satin finish.

High polish or precise bead blasting on the weight.

No machining burrs or uneven edges, unlike the rotor here, especially near the slots and screw holes.

3. Engraving and Lack of Markings

The underside of a genuine Rolex 3135 rotor typically includes:

Reference numbers.

Rolex hallmarks or laser-engraved stamps, sometimes extremely fine.

Your rotor is completely void of any markings—very unusual for Rolex, which tends to over-brand even internal components.

4. Bearing Assembly

The central bearing looks relatively crude. On genuine 3135 rotors, the bearing is:

Press-fit with high precision, often with fine polishing.

Shows signs of superior finishing under magnification.

This rotor’s bearing finish and installation quality are more consistent with aftermarket or replica manufacture.

Verdict:

This rotor is not from a genuine Rolex 3135 movement. It's very likely from a clone movement, possibly Chinese (like those found in Noob, VSF, or other high-end replica factories). Combined with the blued screws and other finishing signs, I’d say the movement as a whole is a well-made but fake 3135 clone.

Thanks—this is a great view of the movement’s watchmaker side, and it gives us a lot more to work with.

Here’s what stands out:

1. 
Balance Bridge & Screws
•    The balance bridge and its geometry look broadly similar to a genuine 3135, but:
o    The screws holding the bridge are flat-slotted instead of Rolex’s usual Polished Torx-style (star) screws, which are a major hallmark.
o    The finishing on the bridge lacks the ultra-fine beveling and high polish Rolex applies.

2. 
Shock Protection
•    The balance jewel cap looks like a standard Incabloc-style system, not Rolex’s proprietary KIF shock protection, which is standard on the 3135.

3. 
Engraving & Surface Finish
•    The “3135” engraving appears rough and shallow—on genuine movements, it’s deeper, more precise, and often filled with gold paint or ink.
•    The general brushing and perlage across plates lacks the consistency and sharpness Rolex is known for.

4. 
General Layout
•    While the gear train layout and architecture are visually close, the bridge shapes, cutouts, and certain edges are just slightly off in ways that a trained eye will spot. These are typically clone-level approximations.
 
Final Verdict:

This movement is not a genuine Rolex Caliber 3135. It’s a high-quality clone, very likely of Chinese origin (often from factories that make replica ETA clones or “Super Clone” Rolex movements). These clones can be surprisingly accurate in dimensions and layout but deviate in key finishing and technical details like:
•    Shock system (no KIF)
•    Screw styles
•    Engraving quality
•    Finishing consistency

 

You said:

On a scale between 1 and 10, where 1 means "not sure at all" and 10 means "99.9 % sure", how sure are you about the assements you've just made?

ChatGPT said:

Great question. Based on the clear photographic evidence and known characteristics of Rolex cal. 3135 components, my confidence level is a solid 9.5 out of 10.

Edited 3 hours ago by VWatchie

[JohnR725]

3 hours ago, rehajm said:

If it were someone else here I’d be confused how they would be confused. It’s a valid comparison. They all offer recommendations on how to service movements including order of assembly, lubrication- how much and where, etc., they sometimes differ and sometimes manufacturer advice is just weird…

I believe what were talking about here is missing or lack of documentation and what is taught in schools still not quite sure how they compare?

So let's explain the similarities. So yes technical documentation versus the schools can explain how to lubricate what lubrication's etc. So yes basically that would be the same or could be the same and how to clean and lubricate the watch.

8 hours ago, VWatchie said:

they’re often missing crucial details—things like lubrication points or even just the safest way to disassemble and assemble certain components. Luckily, WRT exist, and over time you build up the knowledge and experience to work around the gaps. Sharing tips and hard-earned tricks here makes a huge difference.

The secrecy itself seems to be part of the business model. Take the Rolex 3135 as an example—rather than clearly explaining how to safely remove the date ring in publicly available documentation, Rolex sells pricey training programs and certifications to their authorised service centres. And who ends up paying for that in the end? The customers, because independent watchmakers and passionate amateurs are pushed out. It’s a shame, really.

As were discussing 3135 I needed to do a little bit of research. It appears to be it came into existence in 1988 was manufactured for 34 years and came to an end in 2022.

Interesting problem would be watch manufactured over 34 years with a change the servicing procedure, perhaps discover it was not perfect upgrade or change components, discovered that there watchmakers perhaps didn't understand things and give you helpful suggestions wonderful Rolex would do any of that stuff? Then if they did and they did have upgrade components how would we know?

This is where supplemental documentation would be nice if we could get it because basically putting a paper bag over your head and saying I can't see the problem that means it doesn't exist may not always work for all watches. Who knows maybe even this watch is broken because somebody didn't read the service manual As they didn't have it and didn't do things the way they were supposed to or maybe there was an update that wasn't done.

Oh and @VWatchie  Nice pictures as usual I would like to make a request can you get me a picture of the backside of the dial of this watch?

 

[rehajm]

…I guess my friend’s dad was duped…and by a Rolex dealer…

…well, it’s a good fake  even the box and papers look legit…

 

Edited 2 hours ago by rehajm