Watch “gender” based on movement vs case diameter?

[dannyp]

Is there some reason, besides size, that the 22xx is a “women’s” movement, while the 32xx is a “men’s” movement? Does it have to do with how many women wear watches (looser and more dangly; knocking against other jewelry) where the silicone spring makes more sense? I recall something from a press release about this being the “future” of ladies watch movements.

As I also recall, one of the first watches to get it was the YM37. Now, presumably, the 3135, which fit just fine in the OP34 could have fit there, too, right? So there must have been some other reason to use the “ladies” movement?

I realize that trends change, but the old OP34 and YM35 were both marketed as unisex, while their successors are marketed as “women’s” watches. It’s particularly interesting as the YM at least is larger than many watches Rolex markers to men, without having any particularly feminine characteristics relative to the 40/42 versions.

[Tools]

The 22xx movements were originally used in Rolex "ladies" size, and other designated watches.

Because of the smaller size of cases, these smaller movements were also used in the later "mid size" 31mm watches.

Movements, themselves, are neither masculine or feminine.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Tools

The 22xx movements were originally used in Rolex "ladies" size, and other designated watches.

Because of the smaller size of cases, these smaller movements were also used in the later "mid size" 31mm watches.

Movements, themselves, are neither masculine or feminine.

Then what made Rolex make the statement about this being the future of women’s watch movements? Is there something about the silicone hairspring (since that’s what the reference was largely to)?

It’s interesting that all watches that come up as both men’s and women’s on the Rolex watch selector use 32xx while those with 22xx are only shown as women’s. I get it with 31 and below but the OP34 and YM37 have me a bit stumped. Guess I wasn’t sure if there was some correlation here.

[Harry-57]

I think you are confusing marketing with fact. Anyone of any gender can wear any watch they like.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Harry-57

I think you are confusing marketing with fact. Anyone of any gender can wear any watch they like.

My 36mm-wearing-wrist is keenly aware ;).

My curiosity was whether there’s some difference between how men and women (typically) wear watches that actually influenced technical aspects.

Anybody of any gender can wear underwear with a fly front, but there’s definitely a functionality bias there, albeit a very obvious one.

[77T]

I think Hans figured it out early…



He wanted to offer glamour, style and technical performance.

Hans was determined to offer women, as much as men, a choice of modern, reliable and accurate wristwatches that were robust enough to accompany them as they pursued increasingly active lifestyles.

The 2xxx movements just happen to fit 28mm cases better than anything else. So Rolex described their recent improvements as advancing ladies movements.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by 77T

I think Hans figured it out early…



He wanted to offer glamour, style and technical performance.

Hans was determined to offer women, as much as men, a choice of modern, reliable and accurate wristwatches that were robust enough to accompany them as they pursued increasingly active lifestyles.

The 2xxx movements just happen to fit 28mm cases better than anything else. So Rolex described their recent improvements as advancing ladies movements.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Back then I feel like it was a matter of getting men to adopt wristwatches in the first place. Before WWII wasn’t it predominantly pocket watches?

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Back then I feel like it was a matter of getting men to adopt wristwatches in the first place. Before WWII wasn’t it predominantly pocket watches?

Before WWI.

Wristwatches were very popular by WWII.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Then what made Rolex make the statement about this being the future of women’s watch movements? Is there something about the silicone hairspring (since that’s what the reference was largely to)?

It’s interesting that all watches that come up as both men’s and women’s on the Rolex watch selector use 32xx while those with 22xx are only shown as women’s. I get it with 31 and below but the OP34 and YM37 have me a bit stumped. Guess I wasn’t sure if there was some correlation here.

Rolex has committed to the Parachrom hairspring, and it will be around for a while.

They have developed the Syloxi silicone hairspring as well and are presently showcasing it in the Ladies 34mm Pearlmaster series, as well as other watches marketed for ladies, which can be worn by anybody.

"Women's watch movements" may be read to mean movements used in women's watches, not movements that are women's alone.

[Likestheshiny]

There are additional challenges in making smaller movements, and a lot of smaller watches across brands are quartz. I suspect Rolex was just trying to say that they aren't ignoring the technical qualities of smaller watches.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Tools

They have developed the Syloxi silicone hairspring as well and are presently showcasing it in the Ladies 34mm Pearlmaster series, as well as other watches marketed for ladies, which can be worn by anybody.

You'll find no greater advocate than me for anybody wearing the watch they like, nor would I think the movement makes a watch for women or men. As proof, I presently have a 34mm OP silver dial on order and am anxiously awaiting its arrival.

[Harry-57]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Anybody of any gender can wear underwear with a fly front, but there’s definitely a functionality bias there, albeit a very obvious one.

Huh?

Are you saying that external genitalia dictate what watch you are able to wear? I can see the case for a lot of situations and things, but watches?

Whatever floats your boat, I guess. I'll stick to watches.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Harry-57

Huh?

Are you saying that external genitalia dictate what watch you are able to wear? I can see the case for a lot of situations and things, but watches?

Whatever floats your boat, I guess. I'll stick to watches.

I was acknowledging that watches, as a general matter, are entirely gender neutral and based on wearer's preference. However, my question had been whether there was some reason that a particular movement was designed around the wearing habits of one vs. the other, in a purely technical sense (i.e. nothing to do with the style of the watch).

Underwear was just a silly analogy. Like a watch movement, it goes unseen (well, in public, anyways). It is something where anybody, of any gender, can choose whatever version they want based entirely on preference, but where there is a functional bias towards one over the other. My original question was whether there was such a technical bias when developing watch movements or not.

[Overwound]

I'm not sure why they changed the movement in the 34mm OP. The newest 34mm's have the 22xx series but previous 34mm OP's have the 3130 movement. Why that changed over the past year I don't know.

Could be some kind of efficiency reason during production. Maybe they assemble the 34mm and smaller together and 36mm and up on another line.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Overwound

I'm not sure why they changed the movement in the 34mm OP. The newest 34mm's have the 22xx series but previous 34mm OP's have the 3130 movement. Why that changed over the past year I don't know.

Could be some kind of efficiency reason during production. Maybe they assemble the 34mm and smaller together and 36mm and up on another line.

I think it was largely a size thing, since there seems to be little evidence to support an affirmative answer to my original question.

Not sure if the 3230 is bigger than 3130, but 124200 definitely smaller than 114200.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Not sure if the 3230 is bigger than 3130, but 124200 definitely smaller than 114200.

The outside diameter is the same for both movements.
The new movement is incrementally thinner

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Overwound

I'm not sure why they changed the movement in the 34mm OP. The newest 34mm's have the 22xx series but previous 34mm OP's have the 3130 movement. Why that changed over the past year I don't know.

Could be some kind of efficiency reason during production. Maybe they assemble the 34mm and smaller together and 36mm and up on another line.

I would guess the 22xx movement may be cheaper to produce in terms of the amount of material.
Also it may play into benefits of economies of scale for Rolex with regard to the Hair spring
Either way, it's all about profitability at the end of the day
Besides, there is no date complication to worry about in the OP so a smaller movement is of no consequence.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Dirt

The outside diameter is the same for both movements.
The new movement is incrementally thinner

So I guess it’s more about the 124200 being smaller than its predecessor.

Originally Posted by Dirt

I would guess the 22xx movement may be cheaper to produce in terms of the amount of material.
Also it may play into benefits of economies of scale for Rolex with regard to the Hair spring
Either way, it's all about profitability at the end of the day
Besides, there is no date complication to worry about in the OP so a smaller movement is of no consequence.

I’m guessing it has more to do with fit. The 34 is only $300 less than the 36 at msrp, which is par for the course and unlikely influenced by which movement is inside.

And your point about the date is well taken; I’m guessing that’s why the OP Date is gone. No room for a 3235 and wrong dial size for a 2235.

[Newmoney]

40 mm for a mans wrist

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Newmoney

40 mm for a mans wrist

Thank you for this insightful and meaningful contribution.

[AF_Rob]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Thank you for this insightful and meaningful contribution.

I know, right? I guess I'm doing it wrong.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Back then I feel like it was a matter of getting men to adopt wristwatches in the first place. Before WWII wasn’t it predominantly pocket watches?

WWI


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk