What is going on with 32xx Rolex movements

[East of Eden]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

Threads like this confirm to me that Rolex has ZERO incentive to actually fix this problem. Whether it's the 32xx or any other issue people have with Rolex, there's always a vocal contingent of users that will belittle the owner with problems and defend Rolex to the death. And this is on what is basically THE enthusiast Rolex forum on the internet, where people are more attuned to their watches and whatever problems they may be having.

Out in the real world, most owners are oblivious to any issues their watch may be having. Most aren't even wearing it to tell time, they just wear it as jewelry. Maybe one day they notice it's running 1 minute slow per week, so they take it into the AD or a local jeweler and someone just tells them mechanical watches can be inaccurate, just reset the watch once a week and you are fine. And they believe it and just keep wearing it as such.

Meanwhile there is not a single person whether on this forum or not, irregardless of how they feel about the 32xx, that would turn down a steel Daytona or Pepsi if offered to them whether to wear or flip.

Considering all that, what incentive does Rolex have to fix the movement? Why spend $$$ and time trying to figure it out when they are probably already in the planning stages for the 33xx?

What's going to happen is nothing, Rolex will eventually move on to the 33xx which hopefully is more reliable, and 32xx owners will end up having to send their watches in for service every 3-5 years.

Very well said.

Those who deny the issue is like a guy with prostate cancer being responded to with “Well, I don’t have prostate cancer.” Yes, I know this a comparatively trivial matter.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Daniel23456

Maybe you were not traumatized because the surgery went well

Yep.
I think I would be pretty upbeat as well.
After all, more people die in hospital than on the roads.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Way more than a million 32xx movements in circulation, but they are over represented in terms of appearances at RSCs for ongoing timekeeping issues and in polls to that effect.
In comparison to the even greater numbers of 31xx movements that Rolex built a solid reputation on, the relevant number would be smaller.

I wonder what the perception of the movements would be if Rolex hadn't got ahead of themselves and gone for trumpeting the in-house and exclusive +2/-2 tolerance and 5 year warranty with 10 year service intervals to try and out do Omega
If Rolex were playing poker, they would've done their ass with a bluff like that.
It's a bit like bringing a knife to a gunfight in comparison. Even if it had the Rolex logo and name on the handle of the knife.

The sad part is that some people got caught and will continue to do so.
Also that all 6 digit Rolex watches are unfairly tarnished by the bad rep of what may lurk within, when not all 6 digit watches have a 32xx movement with some of the best of them also have 31xx movements and have done so since 2001.

I agree. Emphatically.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by East of Eden

Very well said.

Those who deny the issue is like a guy with prostate cancer being responded to with “Well, I don’t have prostate cancer.” Yes, I know this a comparatively trivial matter.

Keep in mind there's prostate cancer and there's Prostate cancer.
Personally, if had to have the choice I would rather die with it but not because of it.
Sometimes we don't get the choice and the treatment can end up being worse than the dying from it part of the equation.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Wilco68

Spectacular first world problem. Really don’t know how you’re coping…..

It's not even COSC
And with 86400 seconds in a day and all

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Wilco68

No, absolutely not. The majority of posts are not complaining about something.

I've never seen so many complaints about new whiz bang movement timekeeping on this forum or others since a time before this forum started.
The situation is disgraceful.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

I'm not tacitly admitting anything - of course nobody really knows. I was just pointing out that 1,400+ is not a "small dataset" for a poll.

Especially taking the circumstances that brought about the poll in the first place into full consideration.

[881]

Nothing wrong with the current movement and the five digit Explorer II is my least liked Rolex SS sports model, would never wear one.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by Daniel23456

Maybe you were not traumatized because the surgery went well

How would I know the surgery went well before I had it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Way more than a million 32xx movements in circulation, but they are over represented in terms of appearances at RSCs for ongoing timekeeping issues and in polls to that effect.
In comparison to the even greater numbers of 31xx movements that Rolex built a solid reputation on, the relevant number would be smaller.

I wonder what the perception of the movements would be if Rolex hadn't got ahead of themselves and gone for trumpeting the in-house and exclusive +2/-2 tolerance and 5 year warranty with 10 year service intervals to try and out do Omega
If Rolex were playing poker, they would've done their ass with a bluff like that.
It's a bit like bringing a knife to a gunfight in comparison. Even if it had the Rolex logo and name on the handle of the knife.

The sad part is that some people got caught and will continue to do so.
Also that all 6 digit Rolex watches are unfairly tarnished by the bad rep of what may lurk within, when not all 6 digit watches have a 32xx movement with some of the best of them also have 31xx movements and have done so since 2001.

Well said

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

It has nothing to do with what is acceptable to me and everything to do with what is objectively statistically meaningful.

I would agree that without knowing the total number of movements in circulation - or more correctly the total number of movements in regular use (as opposed to being in a safe or hardly worn) the poll result is not statistically representative of 32xx movements generally.

And as such it's incorrect to assume 25% of all 32xx movements are affected.

It could be significantly less than 25%. But equally, it could be significantly more and just not being picked up by owners who don't care.

We cannot establish that.

But the poll is meaningful. It means that circa 25% of those who responded out of 1400 had an actual issue with the 32xx movement. That in itself cannot simply be ignored just becase the result is not statistically relevant

Its also meaningful in that the issue is consistently the same for those movements that are affected.

Just because we cannot accurately establish the percentage of affected 32xx movements with statistical relevance (by total in use or by year of production) doesn't mean the issue should be dismissed as irrelevant (which many continue to do)

It does, however, appear that the issue is lessening (certainly from what Bas has reported he's seeing coming through the RSC he works in) but of course that information is not statistically relevant either

[BMWMotoRider]

What is significant are the people that own multiple 3235 movements and have had more than one of them with low amplitude/slow down issues. If it was as rare as many want to say, I don’t think this would be the case.

There are many people on TRF that have a big financial interest in trivializing the problem because they have a lot invested in multiple 3235 movement watches. I’m sure they are the most vocal about locking this and other threads about the problem.


For myself, I only have 1 Rolex, a 3235 Seadweller 43 that is two years old. It is loosing around 30 seconds or more per day. I bought it for my daily wear and the 70 hour reserve and +-2 seconds per day were a big part of the draw for me to buy it. I’d like to get it fixed but have zero confidence there is currently a fix for it with the no transparency from Rolex. I’m also concerned that RSC will cause some cosmetic damage as others have reported.


I’m happy for those that have reliable, accurate 3235 watches. Unfortunately, there are many that have not been that lucky and are tired of hearing the problems being downplayed.

[Daniel23456]

Originally Posted by Scholar

What I don't understand about those who think it's some kind of fan hate conspiracy against Rolex, what exactly would the fans have to gain here? It reminds me of when people here kept insisting the batch of Cyclops with no magnification was intended as such. (They seemed to go quiet once Rolex replaced those crystals and sorted out the issue.)

Rolex built its reputation on rock-solid reliability, even where the movements were less fancy than those of competitors (in its own class and of course more finicky and refined movements, too). It was pretty much the only in-house that went toe-to-toe with ETA in that regard.

It's not at all odd that fans of the maker would be concerned that the company has compromised in this area in favour of fancy features. A good example of the same phenomenon from another storied and beloved maker is Mercedes-Benz.

They had assumed the popularity of the gadgetry in the 90s SL-class was driving its sales, so they elected to double down on gadgets and compromise on fundamentals. (Here the comparison might be to the power reserve of new Omegas, or other features from competitors.)

It caused a decade of Mercedes models with severe reliability issues, even on the S-Class, that you would not see even on an econo-car. The ship would not really be righted until about 2010.

[Daniel23456]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Ditto

For the record, you don't have to justify anything to anyone. Especially as it's obvious you are using our own words that we can understand quite well what you mean.
Besides, who is some faceless person that's possibly not suitably qualified and sitting down in front of you to judge sufficiently whether you are or aren't actually traumatised to some degree.
For some, the struggle is real.

Cheers mate

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by BMWMotoRider

What is significant are the people that own multiple 3235 movements and have had more than one of them with low amplitude/slow down issues. If it was as rare as many want to say, I don’t think this would be the case.

There are many people on TRF that have a big financial interest in trivializing the problem because they have a lot invested in multiple 3235 movement watches. I’m sure they are the most vocal about locking this and other threads about the problem.


For myself, I only have 1 Rolex, a 3235 Seadweller 43 that is two years old. It is loosing around 30 seconds or more per day. I bought it for my daily wear and the 70 hour reserve and +-2 seconds per day were a big part of the draw for me to buy it. I’d like to get it fixed but have zero confidence there is currently a fix for it with the no transparency from Rolex. I’m also concerned that RSC will cause some cosmetic damage as others have reported.


I’m happy for those that have reliable, accurate 3235 watches. Unfortunately, there are many that have not been that lucky and are tired of hearing the problems being downplayed.

I think the reports of cosmetic damage are an even smaller subset than 32 reports. Can damage happen? Of course. Just about anything can be fixed. Just take a bunch of pics before you send it in. For sure, the watch isn’t going to fix itself.

Will the fix stick? Who knows, I hope that by now it’s sorted. Only time will tell, because Rolex won’t.

[sgt10p]

I wish people could play nicely and respect others opinions ��.

I find these discussions interesting as I have a 32XX movement which is only a baby, 3 months of use 24/7 and am interested when problems may occur.

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by Scholar

What I don't understand about those who think it's some kind of fan hate conspiracy against Rolex, what exactly would the fans have to gain here? It reminds me of when people here kept insisting the batch of Cyclops with no magnification was intended as such. (They seemed to go quiet once Rolex replaced those crystals and sorted out the issue.)

Rolex built its reputation on rock-solid reliability, even where the movements were less fancy than those of competitors (in its own class and of course more finicky and refined movements, too). It was pretty much the only in-house that went toe-to-toe with ETA in that regard.

It's not at all odd that fans of the maker would be concerned that the company has compromised in this area in favour of fancy features. A good example of the same phenomenon from another storied and beloved maker is Mercedes-Benz.

They had assumed the popularity of the gadgetry in the 90s SL-class was driving its sales, so they elected to double down on gadgets and compromise on fundamentals. (Here the comparison might be to the power reserve of new Omegas, or other features from competitors.)

It caused a decade of Mercedes models with severe reliability issues, even on the S-Class, that you would not see even on an econo-car. The ship would not really be righted until about 2010.

A very "scholarly" point.

You've just got to remember the Rolex Kool-Aid is VERY strong with some people, and these days there is also a real culture of some folks not believing something unless they experience it first-hand. It is what it is.

[Gerry62]

Originally Posted by BMWMotoRider

What is significant are the people that own multiple 3235 movements and have had more than one of them with low amplitude/slow down issues. If it was as rare as many want to say, I don’t think this would be the case.

There are many people on TRF that have a big financial interest in trivializing the problem because they have a lot invested in multiple 3235 movement watches. I’m sure they are the most vocal about locking this and other threads about the problem.


For myself, I only have 1 Rolex, a 3235 Seadweller 43 that is two years old. It is loosing around 30 seconds or more per day. I bought it for my daily wear and the 70 hour reserve and +-2 seconds per day were a big part of the draw for me to buy it. I’d like to get it fixed but have zero confidence there is currently a fix for it with the no transparency from Rolex. I’m also concerned that RSC will cause some cosmetic damage as others have reported.


I’m happy for those that have reliable, accurate 3235 watches. Unfortunately, there are many that have not been that lucky and are tired of hearing the problems being downplayed.

I couldn't stand something like that, I would sell the watch immediately. I had sub 116613 and deepsea 116660 both with old cal. 3135 and never a problem . Greetings brother BMWist

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by Devildog

I would agree that without knowing the total number of movements in circulation - or more correctly the total number of movements in regular use (as opposed to being in a safe or hardly worn) the poll result is not statistically representative of 32xx movements generally.

And as such it's incorrect to assume 25% of all 32xx movements are affected.

It could be significantly less than 25%. But equally, it could be significantly more and just not being picked up by owners who don't care.

We cannot establish that.

But the poll is meaningful. It means that circa 25% of those who responded out of 1400 had an actual issue with the 32xx movement. That in itself cannot simply be ignored just becase the result is not statistically relevant

Its also meaningful in that the issue is consistently the same for those movements that are affected.

Just because we cannot accurately establish the percentage of affected 32xx movements with statistical relevance (by total in use or by year of production) doesn't mean the issue should be dismissed as irrelevant (which many continue to do)

It does, however, appear that the issue is lessening (certainly from what Bas has reported he's seeing coming through the RSC he works in) but of course that information is not statistically relevant either

I agree with this.

[Daniel23456]

Originally Posted by sgt10p

I wish people could play nicely and respect others opinions ��.

I find these discussions interesting as I have a 32XX movement which is only a baby, 3 months of use 24/7 and am interested when problems may occur.

For me the problems were from day 1 of each reference. Assuming it has been all good for 3 months, I don't think you'll have issues.

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by Daniel23456

For me the problems were from day 1 of each reference. Assuming it has been all good for 3 months, I don't think you'll have issues.

I wouldn't make that assumption TBH. My (departed) SD43 developed issues after 18 months, so it's not necessarily immediate from day 1.

[Jonny8]

^I wouldn’t be so sure - from what I’ve seen and read it’s more likely to happen a year or two into ownership.

[BMWMotoRider]

Originally Posted by sgt10p

I wish people could play nicely and respect others opinions ��.

I find these discussions interesting as I have a 32XX movement which is only a baby, 3 months of use 24/7 and am interested when problems may occur.

Mine was very accurate the first several months, then started slightly slowing down but I could adjust adequately with crystal up at night. After a bout a year the massive slowdown started and continues to get worse, now about 30 seconds a day after 2 years.

Hopefully they have quietly come up with a fix for newer movements and yours will remain accurate for many years.

[Mystro]

Another 32 thread full of drama and conspiracies,….shocking. A topic that never can be proven or denied with data the customer will never be disclosed. Not sure going down this rabbit hole again will yield anything more that insults and accusations?

I do wish the OP the best as getting it serviced under warranty is not the end of the world and is only mildly inconvenient.

[East of Eden]

Originally Posted by BMWMotoRider

Mine was very accurate the first several months, then started slightly slowing down but I could adjust adequately with crystal up at night. After a bout a year the massive slowdown started and continues to get worse, now about 30 seconds a day after 2 years.

Hopefully they have quietly come up with a fix for newer movements and yours will remain accurate for many years.

From my understanding the Rolex “fix” is to lubricate the area with the design flaw, which is not a permanent fix.

[sgt10p]

Originally Posted by BMWMotoRider

Hopefully they have quietly come up with a fix for newer movements and yours will remain accurate for many years.

Thanks for your reply. Do you intend sending it to Rolex to be fixed?

[sgt10p]

Originally Posted by Daniel23456

For me the problems were from day 1 of each reference. Assuming it has been all good for 3 months, I don't think you'll have issues.

Thanks

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Another 32 thread full of drama and conspiracies,….shocking. A topic that never can be proven or denied with data the customer will never be disclosed. Not sure going down this rabbit hole again will yield anything more that insults and accusations?

I do wish the OP the best as getting it serviced under warranty is not the end of the world and is only mildly inconvenient.

Have to agree in the real world some might slow down a few seconds while many will not.But if you have things like timegraphers, phone apps and watch spend more time testing than wearing then the drama sets in.But would doubt if it's life threatening or to be traumatised if watch is a few seconds slow or fast life to short to worry and fret over a few seconds out of 86400 in a day.

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by padi56

Have to agree in the real world some might slow down a few seconds while many will not. But if you have things like timegraphers, phone apps and watch spend more time testing than wearing then the drama sets in.

PADI, while i do agree with you, for them it's not just a part of life, it is their life and any 'hiccups' could very well lead to traumatizing and deep emotional distress. It triggers them, and we should recognize they may not have been equipped with life tools to handle the emotional stress, let alone the ability to accomplish the physical act(s) of finding a solution.

Not every human nowadays can handle such challenges PADI. It is deeply disturbing for them. So let's be kind and give them emotional support and validate their deepest hardship that Rolex may have triggered inside of them. Perhaps TRF could setup a special Hotline for help to those who may truly need extra special attention through this highly stressful, troubling times for which they have not been equipped to handle.

Rest assured we recognize you, and validate you. We here at TRF are here for you during these enormously challenging times.

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

PADI, while i do agree with you, for them it's not just a part of life, it is their life and any 'hiccups' could very well lead to traumatizing and deep emotional distress. It triggers them, and we should recognize they may not have been equipped with life tools to handle the emotional stress, let alone the ability to accomplish the physical act(s) of finding a solution.

Not every human nowadays can handle such challenges PADI. It is deeply disturbing for them. So let's be kind and give them emotional support and validate their deepest hardship that Rolex may have triggered inside of them. Perhaps TRF could setup a special Hotline for help to those who may truly need extra special attention through this highly stressful, troubling times for which they have not been equipped to handle.

Rest assured we recognize you, and validate you. We here at TRF are here for you during these enormously challenging times.

Not sure of the need to be patronising to the OP and others there, but let's just remember that this is a watch forum and by its very nature it's all about discussing a topic (i.e. reasonably expensive mechanical watches) that is utterly inconsequential in the grand scheme of life. So whether it's back-slapping how amazing Rolex is and how they can do nothing wrong at one end, or talking about occasions where they aren't quite so amazing at the other, it's all just as valid, and simultaneously as utterly irrelevant, as each other.

If you don't care about accuracy, then that's great. But when people do care about it, it doesn't mean they "aren't equipped to deal with life". It just means they've read the Rolex marketing spiel and would kind of like their tens-of-thousands-of-pound watches to perform as expected.

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by Driver8

But when people do care about it, it doesn't mean they "aren't equipped to deal with life". It just means they've read the Rolex marketing spiel and would kind of like their tens-of-thousands-of-pound watches to perform as expected.

Agreed we do wish things always worked as they should. Sometimes they don't, and thankfully this situation is being addressed.