New Sub 126040 - 3230 losing time

[Deppe]

Yes yes, there may be some problems with the 32xx movement for some users, but can we get back to discussing the important things?

So, I’ll start - is the white hang tag needed to have a full set, and will the resale value go down without it?

[jb335]

I own or have owned around 10 32xx moments and all keep about -1 a day. I just checked my 126719 BLRO and after 33 days of keeping it running and wearing it regularly and it’s lost a total of 29 seconds which is obviously less than a second a day.

I guess I’m just lucky and should buy a lotto ticket.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Reddington]

The 126610LN has been my daily for over a year and a half and the performance has only improved over time. At first it consistently ran at -2/day, then progressively got better and better... recently checked in March after 49 days it ran -0.19387755, at 51 days -0.16666667, at 54 days -0.08333333, and at 56 days averaged 0 secs per day.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by Roddypeepa

Devil is correct in that I/ Peter cannot prove that “superlative” is not an absolute guarantee of within 2 seconds of zero, all the time, with full range of mainspring wind and at any point within 5 years of purchase.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is the point that has stuck with me throughout this whole thread regardless of Devildog’s tour de force of cutting and pasting quotes from Rolex. It seems impossible to imagine that Rolex could or would intend to guarantee that their watch could not deviate in timekeeping more than -2/+2 regardless of age or power reserve or temperature or position or gravity or lack thereof or any other variable known or unknown. They can’t test for every single combination of variables so how could they guarantee performance in every scenario? As I understand it Rolex tests movements in standard positions and this is how they establish accuracy. Any watch that could maintain virtual perfection in every possible unknown combination of scenarios would be truly magical indeed.

[Ravager135]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

This is the point that has stuck with me throughout this whole thread regardless of Devildog’s tour de force of cutting and pasting quotes from Rolex. It seems impossible to imagine that Rolex could or would intend to guarantee that their watch could not deviate in timekeeping more than -2/+2 regardless of age or power reserve or temperature or position or gravity or lack thereof or any other variable known or unknown. They can’t test for every single combination of variables so how could they guarantee performance in every scenario? As I understand it Rolex tests movements in standard positions and this is how they establish accuracy. Any watch that could maintain virtual perfection in every possible unknown combination of scenarios would be truly magical indeed.

Precisely. And you arrived at this conclusion because you’re capable of critical thinking. So while people can read marketing language and take it verbatim, it’s extremely unlikely to hold true for every watch in every condition; even watches that run perfect on a timegrapher. I’m sure there are people whose watches run nearly perfect. My 126710BLRO is almost perfect after a month. My 124060 will run 20 seconds behind after two weeks. Both run perfect on the timegrapher.

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by Easy E

No doubt. When you factor in the number of owners that have bought a Rolex as a special occasion watch to be worn maybe 4 times a year, those that never even bother to set the time, those that have no idea it’s even a mechanical timepiece, those that actually never wear theirs, those that simply do not care, etc. The big thread represents, imho, a very small subset of owners. But not knowing about a thing doesn’t make the thing nonexistent.

Haha the majority of owners probably wouldn't notice 32-series slowdown because the watch is months behind due to the "battery running out" (as far as I know) since they last wore it.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Ravager135

As I said, boorish... Go on then, look up the word boorish and prove to me your posts don’t meet this definition.

I do not have a single watch in my collection from numerous brands and ages that runs +2/-2 over several weeks of testing if worn "normally" (however we want to define that). These include watches that if you leave them on the timegrapher will run with +/-0 results. If that's Rolex screwing up with their own marketing making this a guarantee that people will cling to with unrealistic expectations then that IS on them. Thinking critically and with experience, I can easily see that to expect this is unrealistic.

You really think that my posts are rough, bad mannered and course?

Wow. You americans must be more sensitive than I thought

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

This is the point that has stuck with me throughout this whole thread regardless of Devildog’s tour de force of cutting and pasting quotes from Rolex. It seems impossible to imagine that Rolex could or would intend to guarantee that their watch could not deviate in timekeeping more than -2/+2 regardless of age or power reserve or temperature or position or gravity or lack thereof or any other variable known or unknown. They can’t test for every single combination of variables so how could they guarantee performance in every scenario? As I understand it Rolex tests movements in standard positions and this is how they establish accuracy. Any watch that could maintain virtual perfection in every possible unknown combination of scenarios would be truly magical indeed.

Originally Posted by Ravager135

Precisely. And you arrived at this conclusion because you’re capable of critical thinking. So while people can read marketing language and take it verbatim, it’s extremely unlikely to hold true for every watch in every condition; even watches that run perfect on a timegrapher. I’m sure there are people whose watches run nearly perfect. My 126710BLRO is almost perfect after a month. My 124060 will run 20 seconds behind after two weeks. Both run perfect on the timegrapher.

Gents

I don't disagree that its highly unlikely that all the green tag watches will perform to +/- 2spd every day for 5 years or more regardless of any of the variables we all know exist.

However if that's what Rolex say they will do, then purchasers of Rolex products have a right to expect that performance irrespective of whether you or I or anyone thinks its unrealistic.

The whole reason for my involvement in this thread, and the additional research it generated, was to counter those posters who were stating assumptions as fact to support their contention that no, that's not what the advertised spec was.

If doing that and providing extracts and links to Rolex's own material (much if not all of which appears to have been ignored by some) is "boorish" then I'd rather that than blind arrogance.

I was surprised as anyone that there is no small print to caveat to the stated spec. I was even more surprised to read the "guarantees +/- 2spd" statement.

[forcinitijp]

I'm not American... but surely you must want to have the clock well calibrated in the thousandths of a second to be able to arrive on time at 5 PM... before the sweets run out...Or the tea cools down

Now... you have to be very meticulous to observe these changes of seconds... in addition to being precise... how do you do it?

Not even in a million years I would realize that my watch loses 3 seconds a day ....

Greetings to the Monty Python!

[LTCAL94]

Mine was just at 2yrs when it started to slow down . Up until that time , it was shockingly accurate and it was my everyday watch . At first it was not really noticeable and i figured it could be attributed to my activity level or how I placed it overnight . However , it got to a point where I would set it on Monday morning (my usual time check for accuracy) and by afternoon. It would be off by 10 seconds . I took it in and the quickly confirmed low amplitude and kept it for service . It took almost 4 weeks and just got it back . It is now running like new . I tried to get specifics of what was done to it (part replacement etc) and all that I am told and written on the paperwork is “watch serviced”.

My big concern is that all my watches are now 32xx, movements , but is only the 126040 I wear on a regular basis . My concern is that the others will have the same issue but I won’t catch it under warranty .


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[the dark knight]

I will say this. I think I've owned about 7-8 32xx watches over the last couple of years, I have a bad habit of flipping. But I did own each at least 3 months (or they were at least that old when I got them). EVERY single one of them during my ownership never deviated from -2/+2 unless they were at the end of the power reserve (maybe the last 12 hours) during which they would lose time rapidly. And to be more precise, it was always -1 or -2, never gained, and never lost more.

And yes, I remember a couple that seemed closer to -1 that went "down" to -2 after a couple of months. Most all mechanical watches settle in after a while.

OP's problem doesn't seem like the oft-reported 32xx problems, it seems like most owners report a sudden and drastic loss of time, much more than -3.

If I was in OP's shoes, I probably wouldn't be too concerned and try to make sure I take the time measurement after a full wind and trying different positions at night and the usual stuff. Having said that, my experience of extreme as advertised precision on every single 32xx Rolex I've owned would make me slightly concerned if it was still out of spec after trying all the above, even if it's just a second or two. I certainly wouldn't send it in, but I'd monitor it and see how it goes.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by LTCAL94

My big concern is that all my watches are now 32xx, movements , but is only the 126040 I wear on a regular basis . My concern is that the others will have the same issue but I won’t catch it under warranty .

It's easy to find the low amplitude virus.

[No SUBctitute]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

This is the point that has stuck with me throughout this whole thread regardless of Devildog’s tour de force of cutting and pasting quotes from Rolex. It seems impossible to imagine that Rolex could or would intend to guarantee that their watch could not deviate in timekeeping more than -2/+2 regardless of age or power reserve or temperature or position or gravity or lack thereof or any other variable known or unknown. They can’t test for every single combination of variables so how could they guarantee performance in every scenario? As I understand it Rolex tests movements in standard positions and this is how they establish accuracy. Any watch that could maintain virtual perfection in every possible unknown combination of scenarios would be truly magical indeed.

Why not? Rolex is super tough. Do power reserve level and temperature and other factors really affect Rolex accuracy that much? My 3135 submariner operated at +1.6 seconds per day in the 130 degree desert, -10 degree ski slopes, underwater, in the air, with low power reserve, with high power reserve, if I wore it all the time, if I never wore it at night....that's why I admire Rolex, external factors have relatively minimal influence on the movement.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by No SUBctitute

Why not? Rolex is super tough. Do power reserve level and temperature and other factors really affect Rolex accuracy that much? My 3135 submariner operated at +1.6 seconds per day in the 130 degree desert, -10 degree ski slopes, underwater, in the air, with low power reserve, with high power reserve, if I wore it all the time, if I never wore it at night....that's why I admire Rolex, external factors have relatively minimal influence on the movement.

While on the wrist your own body temperature would mostly control temperature variations.

Originally Posted by Kinnakeet

Omega is 0 to + 5 per day. Pretty sure. The ones I have and have run/ran about +2 seconds per week.

Yes Omega changed from the normal COSC spec AVERAGE -4+6 seconds, to the 0+5 seconds so Rolex had to try and trump it, marketing today is good but it often baffles brains.

[Scottyboy]

I've had 2 watches with these issues, but even I am getting bored of reading all the back and forth from the believers and deniers.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by No SUBctitute

….relatively minimal influence….

You answered your own question.

[Scottyboy]

Originally Posted by waterman1

I have heard of the sea dwellers mainly and other 3235 movements having the issue, but not the 124060 with the 3230.
Are there issues with the 124060 as well?
* I will say I’ve had issues with the 3235 and it certainly was not only -3 seconds per day. More like 30 to 45 and more.

When I eventually sent my 2021 124060 in, its was between 15 and 20 secs p/day slow.

[Scottyboy]

Originally Posted by JMGoodnight369

I chime in on this one. Yes I had purchased a 124060 from the AD in January of 2022. It ran at -5/6 that day. I had hope that it would settle in and maybe start running a little faster but it actually got worse. I took it on a trip to NYC in October of that year and they said amplitude was well below where it should be. So they serviced it and it took almost 3 months to get it back. Since then it’s been running better. It’s slow on the wrist but pretty fast dial up resting. Maybe that’s how it has to be regulated. I had another 3235 do the same thing after about 5 months. Went from running +1.5 to -5/7. Really hoping my BLRO doesn’t have this prob

It's a 3230 in your Submariner, 3235 is the date variant

[belutak]

Originally Posted by forcinitijp

I'm not American... but surely you must want to have the clock well calibrated in the thousandths of a second to be able to arrive on time at 5 PM... before the sweets run out...Or the tea cools down

Now... you have to be very meticulous to observe these changes of seconds... in addition to being precise... how do you do it?

Not even in a million years I would realize that my watch loses 3 seconds a day ....

Greetings to the Monty Python!

It is not primarily about the accuracy but more so about the RELIABILITY.

If the brand new watch costing AUD 15,000 suddenly goes out of spec, it shatters my confidence that this watch will last “the lifetime” (just kidding of course) as it is expected from Rolex?

Think RELIABILITY and not sheer accuracy.

———————————/-//—-
It is now loosing 4s per day


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[padi56]

Originally Posted by belutak

It is not primarily about the accuracy but more so about the RELIABILITY.

If the brand new watch costing AUD 15,000 suddenly goes out of spec, it shatters my confidence that this watch will last “the lifetime” (just kidding of course) as it is expected from Rolex?

Think RELIABILITY and not sheer accuracy.

———————————/-//—-
It is now loosing 4s per day


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just because any watch goes slightly out of spec by loosing or gaining a few seconds would doubt if it would effect reliability.Alll Rolex movements made over the past 60 odd years some had a few problems like the12,15,30,and 31 series but many are still ticking 50 plus years old.

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

I will say this. I think I've owned about 7-8 32xx watches over the last couple of years, I have a bad habit of flipping. But I did own each at least 3 months (or they were at least that old when I got them). EVERY single one of them during my ownership never deviated from -2/+2 unless they were at the end of the power reserve (maybe the last 12 hours) during which they would lose time rapidly. And to be more precise, it was always -1 or -2, never gained, and never lost more.

And yes, I remember a couple that seemed closer to -1 that went "down" to -2 after a couple of months. Most all mechanical watches settle in after a while.

OP's problem doesn't seem like the oft-reported 32xx problems, it seems like most owners report a sudden and drastic loss of time, much more than -3.

If I was in OP's shoes, I probably wouldn't be too concerned and try to make sure I take the time measurement after a full wind and trying different positions at night and the usual stuff. Having said that, my experience of extreme as advertised precision on every single 32xx Rolex I've owned would make me slightly concerned if it was still out of spec after trying all the above, even if it's just a second or two. I certainly wouldn't send it in, but I'd monitor it and see how it goes.

LOL, just after I posted this I put on my 126610 which I haven't worn in a couple of weeks. Lost about 3 seconds in a bit over 12 hours after a full wind. This would be the first 32xx watch I've owned that's run even slightly out of spec after a full wind. Going to monitor for a while and if it keeps running out of spec will put on timegrapher and report results on the 32xx megathread.

[forcinitijp]

Originally Posted by padi56

Just because any watch goes slightly out of spec by loosing or gaining a few seconds would doubt if it would effect reliability.Alll Rolex movements made over the past 60 odd years some had a few problems like the12,15,30,and 31 series but many are still ticking 50 plus years old.

Yes, of course! That's why Rolex is so reliable... and it's not the first time that a Rolex movement delays, advances or has problems... remember that before the warranty was 2 years .... now it's 5... that tells you that they expect the movement to present some mismatch ......

In addition, the reliability is given by the support that the brand puts in the face of any event, not if the watch delays or advances 1 second more than in the controlled laboratory tests they have done!

[forcinitijp]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

LOL, just after I posted this I put on my 126610 which I haven't worn in a couple of weeks. Lost about 3 seconds in a bit over 12 hours after a full wind. This would be the first 32xx watch I've owned that's run even slightly out of spec after a full wind. Going to monitor for a while and if it keeps running out of spec will put on timegrapher and report results on the 32xx megathread.

Excuse my ignorance... how do you control those seconds in 24 hours? Do you write it down? Do you have a measuring device? Do you do it by eye? How do you control it... ??

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by forcinitijp

Excuse my ignorance... how do you control those seconds in 24 hours? Do you write it down? Do you have a measuring device? Do you do it by eye? How do you control it... ??

Your ignorance and obviously sarcastic bait is excused.

It's very simple for anyone. You set your watch to a reference time (in my case I use time.gov) I write down when I set the time, and then I check the time on my watch vs the reference time after a certain period of time has passed.

And then I confirm on a timegrapher.

It's really not that difficult, you should try it sometime.

[forcinitijp]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

Your ignorance and obviously sarcastic bait is excused.

It's very simple for anyone. You set your watch to a reference time (in my case I use time.gov) I write down when I set the time, and then I check the time on my watch vs the reference time after a certain period of time has passed.

And then I confirm on a timegrapher.

It's really not that difficult, you should try it sometime.

Wow!!! How much work! I'm tired of just reading it! But thank you for taking the time to explain it to me.!

[Krash]

I always feel excluded from these threads because my position is somewhere in the middle.

I have two watches with the 32xx movement by the way. Both are running within spec right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Roddypeepa

This certainly isn’t the first time that this has been discussed on here:

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=706110 to name but one.

I think that if I have this right, COSC has an average daily rate of plus 6 to minus 4 tested over a number of positions, at a range of temperatures and so on.

Devil is correct in that I/ Peter cannot prove that “superlative” is not an absolute guarantee of within 2 seconds of zero, all the time, with full range of mainspring wind and at any point within 5 years of purchase.

However, in the real world these will be tested on machine, after casing, and with a range positions and other conditions and averaged. I’d bet my house on it but at the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter if the OP’s watch is genuinely playing up then take it in. However, I advised watch it for a while and see about different testing positions, give it a full wind etc is all sensible advice. No need to jump the gun…

I cannot prove this is how it is done when Rolex are testing “superlative”but common sense would dictate that in any manufacturing process quality control would mean a range of tests, an average is taken and we move on.

I do now agree with him that anyone has the right to take a watch in if it’s even a tiny fraction of a second outside this range but as I’ve said before I do not think that in a lot of cases any actual work would get done once they’ve put it on one of their timing machines and made a judgement.

But just because it is a very small margin outside of this in every day conditions we don’t know about this individual case. The OP asked a question, I and others chipped in with our advice. My advice is no less relevant than Devil’s. He argues well but in the whole time I have been in to this hobby that is my understanding. It would actually be very unreasonable for any one of us to expect a watch to be plus minus two for 5 years. It doesn’t mean it can’t and doesn’t happen but it’s a marvel that in the vast majority of cases they run to well within basic COSC standards that whole time.

Some of the people reading this thread with their popcorn out will agree with him, some with Padi and some couldn’t give a damn either way. One of the other posters is right - this is becoming extremely boorish which I regret and was never my intention.

I will reiterate what I meant yesterday: you have argued your point very well from a legal point of view. But you don’t know either how Rolex come to the superlative standard unless you are keeping your cards very close to your chest.

I don’t care one jot about the legalities of it - I’m interested in watchmaking and horology in general, not value, not marketing, not legal speak, not people wanting to massage their egos by catching well meaning posters out with legalities or bamboozling some others with legal jargon and carefully pasted statements from the Rolex website. That’s why I’m here.

I recently took a break from the forum because it had become stale with no availability, lots of boring no availability posts, loads of should I ask my AD x or y, loads of flexing incomings.

What I’d really like to see is a Rolex service centre technician or similar come on here and give us the truth because I think both sides of the argument raise some very interesting technical questions - exactly the kind we are interested in answering/hearing.

I think most of us who have been around a while, including you like discussing the technical side of the hobby much more than all the other value, availability nonsense. Long may that continue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, let me get this straight
You are waiting for a Rolex Technician to come along to explain to you the difficulties they have to deal with in getting the dodgy 32xx movements to operate in accordance with Rolex specs.

It's been done and done more than sufficiently on this forum..
Not just by our own celebrity Rolex watchmaker on this forum but others also with overlaps across the internet forums from other well respected watchmakers who are probably more active and well known within the industry.

[No SUBctitute]

Originally Posted by padi56

While on the wrist your own body temperature would mostly control temperature variations.

Good point! I didn't think of that.

[No SUBctitute]

I love Rolex because it is a robust, accurate mechanical watch. I can wear it during any activity, and I do--golfing, diving/snorkeling, hiking, working out, etc. It has never missed a beat in more than a decade. f you don't want to read my pontificating about my love of Rolex, feel free to skip to my question at the end.

I purchased it because it was tough and accurate and it looks good. The last factor wouldn't matter if it didn't have the first two. I am so impressed with its engineering. Few watches at that price point maintain that level of accuracy (Omega, Tudor, ?) and have that toughness.

I always think it is odd when members are excoriated for wanting a Rolex to perform within the 2 second standard that Rolex has set for itself. Detractors love to point out the number of seconds in a day and state their disbelief that 3 1/2 seconds a day matters to us.

Here is why the accuracy matters to me:

1) I wear one watch and I like NOT having to adjust the time. If a watch was only within COSC spec it could gain 6 seconds per day and it would be off my 3 minutes in a month. I would want to reset it long before that. As it stands now, I don't have to adjust the time for months or longer.

2) Products with a high degree of engineering are fascinating. I am not an engineer and I just find the mechanicals of a watch that is a second or two off per a day very impressive. I am less impressed by a watch that is 6 seconds off per day.

So, here is my question. If you don't care that Rolex is so uber accurate, then why do you buy Rolex? You can buy a much cheaper COSC dive or dress watch that still looks great. Are you buying it as expensive jewelry or as a status symbol or something else? Serious question.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by forcinitijp

Yes, of course! That's why Rolex is so reliable... and it's not the first time that a Rolex movement delays, advances or has problems... remember that before the warranty was 2 years .... now it's 5... that tells you that they expect the movement to present some mismatch ......

I disagree. Manufacturers generally increase warranty periods for one, or both, of two reasons:

1) Because they have faith their product is reliable and will not fail in some way for longer than the original (shorter) period previously offered.

2) For marketing/keeping up with or bettering the competition reasons.

To increase a warranty because they expect problems is highly unusual for a manufacturing company and makes little sense, financial or otherwise.

Originally Posted by forcinitijp

Excuse my ignorance... how do you control those seconds in 24 hours? Do you write it down? Do you have a measuring device? Do you do it by eye? How do you control it... ??

Its really not hard

I'll give you the benefit of doubt that you are not simply trolling

Set watch to exact time against recognised exact time source. I use time.is.

Compare watch to recognised time source 24 hours later.

Repeat as necessary to understand the impact of as many variables as you see fit

There are also many smartphone apps for this purpose that allow you to record as many data points in a chosen period as you see fit and which will then present the results in various forms including a graphical representation of timekeeping.

Once installed it takes but seconds each time to use