Perfect 0.0 Accuracy After One Month: Rolex Amazingness

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by padi56

Very strange that a few members love to slag off the 32 movements at every opportunity.

It’s definitely an obsession with a few folks. It’s implied that every Rolex with a 32xx movement will act up eventually.

[mrmahdi]

Originally Posted by Tridor

Glad that you got a good one. Generally, I'm not a fan of the 32xx because of so many reported instances of warranty returns to RSC.

The 32xx movements can be a hit or miss but if it’s a hit, it’s very accurate.

[sigma089]

The 3230 in my Explorer has been gaining under one second per day since I got it in Nov last year. I'm extremly happy with that.

Granted, I don't wear it everyday, but it's by far the most accurate mechanical watch I have ever owned. Way better than my 5164 for example.

Personally I don't get the obsession with 31xx movements some folks on here seem to have. They are great, but not more accurate or robust than 32xx from my experience. Same with 15xx caliber movements. They are all mechanical movements in the end, they do need a service occassionally.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by brandrea

It’s definitely an obsession with a few folks. It’s implied that every Rolex with a 32xx movement will act up eventually.

Agree about obsession by a selected few with there timing machines.

[saxo3]

I have NOT even seen 1 (one) contribution on TRF where a member has shown (with data) that his 32xx watch keeps (or kept) high movement amplitudes (after full winding) together with good timekeeping over a period of several (4-5) years, i.e., starting from the date of purchase and without any RSC repair or regulation of the 32xx movement.

[mrmahdi]

Originally Posted by saxo3

I have NOT even seen 1 (one) contribution on TRF where a member has shown (with data) that his 32xx watch keeps (or kept) high movement amplitudes (after full winding) together with good timekeeping over a period of several (4-5) years, i.e., starting from the date of purchase and without any RSC repair or regulation of the 32xx movement.

Let me tell you why I sent my watch to the RSC: I dropped it and it started running too fast. I took it to a watchmaker and it started too run slow. Then I had it serviced at the RSC and would average 2 seconds a day, give or take running faster or slower. It annoyed me so I took it back the RSC it’s like they did NOTHING.

Finally, I had to regulated by a watchmaker and now it’s running perfect.

But here’s the moral of the story: before I dropped it, it was running under a second fast a day. Very good and was of course pleased. My watch is from 2019. I never had any issues before I dropped it.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by mrmahdi

Let me tell you why I sent my watch to the RSC: I dropped it and it started running too fast. I took it to a watchmaker and it started too run slow. Then I had it serviced at the RSC and would average 2 seconds a day, give or take running faster or slower. It annoyed me so I took it back the RSC it’s like they did NOTHING.

Finally, I had to regulated by a watchmaker and now it’s running perfect.

But here’s the moral of the story: before I dropped it, it was running under a second fast a day. Very good and was of course pleased. My watch is from 2019. I never had any issues before I dropped it.

Thanks for the explanations. Your description is not in contradiction with my post 65. Read (again) my post 20.

Anyhow, I sent you a pm with a proposal.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by JRell

Totally agree, it’s like there is an agenda!

Call me a cynic, but it seems to me that the vast majority of people on this planet have an agenda.
All one needs to do is scratch deep enough to find it

Let's not delude ourselves

[JasoninDenver]

So, I am curious as to whether the drop in time keeping of those reporting problems with the 3235 continually worsens over time or seems to plateau at the mentioned -10 mark?

I think I could live with a -10 and not obsess with it until it was due for service. However, if it was to start losing substantially more and required me to reset the time more than once a week, I would be disappointed.

As a reference, my 3135 is running -.5 after its 10 year service.

I still don’t understand the need Rolex felt to replace the 3135 as even fewer of the average consumers care about the movement model, 70 hour reserve or COSC specs.

[mrmahdi]

Originally Posted by JasoninDenver

So, I am curious as to whether the drop in time keeping of those reporting problems with the 3235 continually worsens over time or seems to plateau at the mentioned -10 mark?

I think I could live with a -10 and not obsess with it until it was due for service. However, if it was to start losing substantially more and required me to reset the time more than once a week, I would be disappointed.

As a reference, my 3135 is running -.5 after its 10 year service.

I still don’t understand the need Rolex felt to replace the 3135 as even fewer of the average consumers care about the movement model, 70 hour reserve or COSC specs.

I wonder why the 3135 was replaced was perhaps they wanted more accuracy in the watch and also more antimagnetic resistance.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by JasoninDenver

As a reference, my 3135 is running -.5 after its 10 year service.

I still don’t understand the need Rolex felt to replace the 3135 as even fewer of the average consumers care about the movement model, 70 hour reserve or COSC specs.

I've had multiple 31xx movements that have run flawlessly with accuracy that was and currently is within the Superlative standard for many years until they needed routine servicing.
After servicing they were back to their normal stellar timekeeping. I suppose that's what one has come to expect from a well designed movement with a Free Sprung Balance that equates to reliability.
That was before and after the introduction of the Superlative standard which was well before the end of 31xx production.

In some ways, Rolex had to do something to counter their main competitor(Omega) or they ran the very real risk of writing themselves out of the hological story.
Hense the introduction of 3 key elements to stay relevant with their official Superlative standard, the 70 hour power reserve(so that "collectors" could imagine having watches on rotation still running on Monday morning) and supposedly 10 year service intervals.
In summary, Rolex were playing catch-up and were found wanting and they got ahead of themselves

[Chewbacca]

My 3200 calibre started ticking backwards after delivery. Still does. This is a disgrace!!!!

Good morning everyone!

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by mrmahdi

I wonder why the 3135 was replaced was perhaps they wanted more accuracy in the watch and also more antimagnetic resistance.

The accuracy was already present with the 31xx movement.
They were routinely running to the Superlative specs years prior to its introduction.
The 31xx was the current mainstream movement at the time of the introduction of the Supelative spec which coincided with and heralded by the overnight changeover in hangtag colour.
Also the Anti-magnetic properties haven't changed between the 31xx and 32xx movements.

The only tangible "improvements" have been with regard to power reserve and service intervals.
Previously service intervals were unofficially advised to be in the order of 5-7 years, which seemed quite reasonable.

With the introduction of the hangtag change it was stated in some letter to a dealer which was leaked to the media, that average service intervals had historically been in the order of 10 years.
Some time after that, Rolex started puting it out there that they (for the first time in history) recommended 10 year service intervals.
A good number of these 32xx movements aren't even getting out of the warranty period before they're found to be grinding themselves(uncontrolably) into dust with serious impacts on their Superlative accuracy that require a suite of corrective measures to correct to arrest their self destruction.
Interestingly people will spend thousands on these watches with the latest and greatest that Rolex has to offer, only to roll the dice on reliability factors that previously one would expect to find with something one could purchase down some narrow alley or on a beach whilst on holiday in a developing country for well under $100

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca

My 3200 calibre started ticking backwards after delivery. Still does. This is a disgrace!!!!

Good morning everyone!

It sounds like a classic case of operator error
Stop winding the crown forwards to set the time as the hands will rotate anticlockwise
Winding the crown forward to advance the time is a luxury that we fellow 31xx movements owners enjoy

If you hack the movement.
Is the watch still spot on twice a day?

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by swexlin

I am curious about something. Does working on your laptop (which I do 8-10 hours a day) affect how the watch runs? I ask because my most accurate watches (DJ 41, Tudor BB Chrono, and my still new, 1month old SD 43) have been around my computer the least.

In addition to my DeepSea SD (mentioned above, just sent it to RSC), my Tudor 925 and my Tudor Diet Pepsi (bought Feb 21, so a year now) always ran +1 or 2 spd. Both, within the last week or so, have been running 3-4 spd slow. WTF? I have worn them around my computer a little more.

I thinking about taking my watches off when I'm on the laptop. I refuse to believe that withing the last month, three of my watches which were within spec are suddenly not. Maybe it's aliens....

I wonder if it could just be positional error, since being at the computer means you might have your wrist sitting in a particular position for a longer period of time??

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by padi56

Agree about obsession by a selected few with there timing machines.

Nah. At this point it’s essentially Rolex’s version of the Porsche 996 IMS bearing issue. Even our own resident RSC employee Bas says he wouldn’t buy a 32xx movement.

FWIW, Omega had big problems with their first co-axials and it took them 8 years to release the 8500 variant that works well. Grand Seiko’s new Dual Impulse escapement movement is giving people fits as well. Who woulda thought redesigning the Swiss lever would be hard??

[mrmahdi]

I wonder what is the percentage of people who have a 32xx series watch who experience problems?

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by mrmahdi

I wonder what is the percentage of people who have a 32xx series watch who experience problems?

It is unknowable. What is inside a black hole form which light cannot escape for example.

Rolex will never admit or divulge anything related to this.

Even if 100% of the movements have the underlying issue the probability of detection by an end user is exceedingly low as it is a product of other probabilities.

Watchmakers have spoken though. The movement is no 4130.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Nah. At this point it’s essentially Rolex’s version of the Porsche 996 IMS bearing issue. Even our own resident RSC employee Bas says he wouldn’t buy a 32xx movement.

FWIW, Omega had big problems with their first co-axials and it took them 8 years to release the 8500 variant that works well. Grand Seiko’s new Dual Impulse escapement movement is giving people fits as well. Who woulda thought redesigning the Swiss lever would be hard??

Very interesting.
I wasn't aware of the GS dual impulse problems and I usually keep my ear to the ground.
Omega seemed to come to grips with the Co-axial when they changed the rate back to what was advised by Daniels in the first instance. I think it was the 3rd revision to the ETA 2892 escapement variant in 2006. I have one myself and it's a dead set ripper

Of course, we are talking about the mainstream brand offerings here with regard to the more exotic mechanical escapement variants. There are others which are more obscure but it sort of puts it all into context with regard to the degree of difficulty when we consider that the Spring Drive took a number of decades of fits and starts by GS before it could to come into fruition because the technology simply wasn't available to overcome key design challenges.
I always thought the Spring drive was an answer to a question the public wasn't asking. I also felt the same way about the Co-axial, but it demonstrates that the manufacturers are trying to improve their technology whilst competing with each other in an effort to remain relevant.
If it wasn't for the whole quartz thing, we may not be having this conversation

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Very interesting.
I wasn't aware of the GS dual impulse problems and I usually keep my ear to the ground.
Omega seemed to come to grips with the Co-axial when they changed the rate back to what was advised by Daniels in the first instance. I think it was the 3rd revision to the ETA 2892 escapement variant in 2006. I have one myself and it's a dead set ripper

Of course, we are talking about the mainstream brand offerings here with regard to the more exotic mechanical escapement variants. There are others which are more obscure but it sort of puts it all into context with regard to the degree of difficulty when we consider that the Spring Drive took a number of decades of fits and starts by GS before it could to come into fruition because the technology simply wasn't available to overcome key design challenges.
I always thought the Spring drive was an answer to a question the public wasn't asking. I also felt the same way about the Co-axial, but it demonstrates that the manufacturers are trying to improve their technology whilst competing with each other in an effort to remain relevant.
If it wasn't for the whole quartz thing, we may not be having this conversation

Oddly enough, my Grand Seiko 9F quartz are probably my new favorite movements.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Oddly enough, my Grand Seiko 9F quartz are probably my new favorite movements.

Same here.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Oddly enough, my Grand Seiko 9F quartz are probably my new favorite movements.

Very understandable

I've moved on from the changing batteries thing aeons ago but have fond memories of a couple of good watches that have come and gone.
I even had a solar powered digital Seiko Sports 100 from about 1980 which proved to be extremely useful and within a couple of seconds fast per year until it finally couldn't be serviced any more by Seiko and finally died with a badly cracked crystal which seemingly wasn't detrimental.
I sometimes look at the 9F offerings and admire what they're doing, but a manual wind Spring Drive has been in my sights for quite a while now.

My wife has a nice Tissot Quartz, but she's totally disinterested in it since she's had her Rolex DJ which is obviously a serious upgrade

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Very understandable

I've moved on from the changing batteries thing aeons ago but have fond memories of a couple of good watches that have come and gone.
I even had a solar powered digital Seiko Sports 100 from about 1980 which proved to be extremely useful and within a couple of seconds fast per year until it finally couldn't be serviced any more by Seiko and finally died with a badly cracked crystal which seemingly wasn't detrimental.
I sometimes look at the 9F offerings and admire what they're doing, but a manual wind Spring Drive has been in my sights for quite a while now.

My wife has a nice Tissot Quartz, but she's totally disinterested in it since she's had her Rolex DJ which is obviously a serious upgrade

Not to derail the thread, but even a Spring Drive only being accurate to about 15 seconds a month just feels like a middle ground to me. Usually quartz doesn’t interest me, but the 9F is another level. Essentially never change the time on it or service it, and just swap the battery every 3 years.

Either way, GS is having problems with their new mechanical seemingly in the opposite direction as Rolex. Users are getting them with very fast speeds, and dealing with their warranty work is apparently not nearly as customer friendly as Rolex, so it could be worse!

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Not to derail the thread, but even a Spring Drive only being accurate to about 15 seconds a month just feels like a middle ground to me. Usually quartz doesn’t interest me, but the 9F is another level. Essentially never change the time on it or service it, and just swap the battery every 3 years.

Either way, GS is having problems with their new mechanical seemingly in the opposite direction as Rolex. Users are getting them with very fast speeds, and dealing with their warranty work is apparently not nearly as customer friendly as Rolex, so it could be worse!

100 % agreed
One of the reasons why I have had such high regard for Rolex. The aftersales care is probably unrivalled on a global scale all things considered.
To conclude the going off topic thing. I am always hopeful that whenever I send my GS watches in for service, that the highest standards are adhered to just as it is with the manufacture as it's a requirement for them to be returned to the mothership where I live.

[mrmahdi]

Originally Posted by Dirt

The accuracy was already present with the 31xx movement.
They were routinely running to the Superlative specs years prior to its introduction.
The 31xx was the current mainstream movement at the time of the introduction of the Supelative spec which coincided with and heralded by the overnight changeover in hangtag colour.
Also the Anti-magnetic properties haven't changed between the 31xx and 32xx movements.

The only tangible "improvements" have been with regard to power reserve and service intervals.
Previously service intervals were unofficially advised to be in the order of 5-7 years, which seemed quite reasonable.

With the introduction of the hangtag change it was stated in some letter to a dealer which was leaked to the media, that average service intervals had historically been in the order of 10 years.
Some time after that, Rolex started puting it out there that they (for the first time in history) recommended 10 year service intervals.
A good number of these 32xx movements aren't even getting out of the warranty period before they're found to be grinding themselves(uncontrolably) into dust with serious impacts on their Superlative accuracy that require a suite of corrective measures to correct to arrest their self destruction.
Interestingly people will spend thousands on these watches with the latest and greatest that Rolex has to offer, only to roll the dice on reliability factors that previously one would expect to find with something one could purchase down some narrow alley or on a beach whilst on holiday in a developing country for well under $100

Even with the reported issues with the 32xx movements, how often do these watches continue to have problems AFTER it’s sent in for service to the RSC?

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by mrmahdi

Even with the reported issues with the 32xx movements, how often do these watches continue to have problems AFTER it’s sent in for service to the RSC?

In the absence of statistics, I can only offer a summary of what has been gleaned from the other related thread.
Reports have varied with some watches requiring up to 3 trips to the RSC for rectification/warranty repair work.
If I recall correctly, it has mostly been a 3 strikes policy applied by the owners where the watch was sold after the 3rd warranty repair for the same issue because there doesn't appear to be any evidence that the issue has been resolved conclusively.
At the other end of the spectrum, some people knowingly have a problem or are anticipating that in the event of a problem they will send their watch in to be fixed as required before warranty runs out.

I hope this answers you question
Cheers.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by mrmahdi

Even with the reported issues with the 32xx movements, how often do these watches continue to have problems AFTER it’s sent in for service to the RSC?

Depends on how many timing machines you have or phone timing apps or if obsessed checking you watch every hour out of the 86400 seconds in a day. Wonder now how many millions of 32 series powered Rolex watches are ticking and keeping time quite happily in this world today .

[Michael N Q8]

I had a 2017 SD43 and also a 2018 BLRO GMT, both had this issue. I have had multiple 31xx and Daytona's without any issues. I would definitely not buy another with one of these movements.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by padi56

Depends on how many timing machines you have or phone timing apps or if obsessed checking you watch every hour out of the 86400 seconds in a day. Wonder now how many millions of 32 series powered Rolex watches are ticking and keeping time quite happily in this world today .

I dunno, Peter. I'm usually in full agreement with your posts, but I think this is a different situation, and I think it's important to talk about, because manufacturers don't fix things if they can get away with it (like the Porsche 996 and first Omega Co-axials.) Surely there are many, many owners happily wearing 32XX watches out there who just don't notice that the amplitude is dropping too quickly and timing is getting worse, or don't even care, especially in this world of collectors owning so many watches (and being afraid to wear them,) but watch forums are for the enthusiasts who investigate and love the minutiae, and it's these enthusiasts who are important in occasionally pointing out problems. I see it not only in watch forums, but also other enthusiast forums for cameras, cars, etc.

In the case of the 32XX issues, we have polls, tons of anecdotal evidence, and even watchmakers themselves pointing out the problem. It seems important.

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by Dirt

It sounds like a classic case of operator error
Stop winding the crown forwards to set the time as the hands will rotate anticlockwise
Winding the crown forward to advance the time is a luxury that we fellow 31xx movements owners enjoy

If you hack the movement.
Is the watch still spot on twice a day?

Did it. Same results. It’s now 2am February 18th

I’m ruined!