Rolex Forums - Rolex Forum - View Single Post - 32xx movement problem poll and data thread

saxo3 · 20 September 2024, 05:50 AM

Here is my explanation.

Let's look at the graph of the averaged rates:

We can see that all 7 watches are within the advertised range of -2/+2 s/d after full winding (t = 0 h), i.e., they are correctly regulated.

Watches #1, #2, #3, #4, #5 show a very small change in rate between t = 0 h and t = 24 h.

Watches #6 and #7 both lose a bit more time in the first 24 hours.

Let's look at the graph of the averaged amplitudes:

For the same 7 watches, we see a big difference between the initial amplitudes (after full winding) at t = 0. They all lose significantly in amplitudes after the first 24 hours. Despite this effect, all the watches remain very accurate within the first 24 hours.

In addition, all the watches have an average 5-position amplitude above 200° C. This keeps the watches accurate. What has been described so far everybody can see from my two graphs.

What you cannot see is that I have sorted the seven watches by 32xx movement type.

Watch #1, #2, #3 have 3230 calibers
Watch #4, #5 have 3235 calibers
Watch #6, #7 have 3285 calibers

These three calibers have different "functionalities":

3230: three hands
3235: three hands + date wheel mechanism
3285: three hands + date wheel mechanism + GMT hand

I think this can explain the amplitudes graph: as the number of mechanical movement parts increases, friction increases and with it the loss of amplitude after full winding and along the power reserve.

We see this for NEW 32xx watches measured by different people with different (but the same type of) timegraphers.

Although I am discussing only a very small number of 7 new watches, which is statistically irrelevant, I see a kind of ranking: 3230 are better than 3235, which are better than 3285 watches.

This observation confirms what I have observed since a long time for my own 3235 and 3285 watches. My 3285s are worse than my 3235. I do not think this is a coincidence.

Below the same graphs, but with additional information on the 32xx movement for each watch.

20 September 2024, 05:50 AM	#5238
saxo3 "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2020 Location: . Posts: 3,091	32xx movement problem poll and data thread Here is my explanation. Let's look at the graph of the averaged rates: We can see that all 7 watches are within the advertised range of -2/+2 s/d after full winding (t = 0 h), i.e., they are correctly regulated. Watches #1, #2, #3, #4, #5 show a very small change in rate between t = 0 h and t = 24 h. Watches #6 and #7 both lose a bit more time in the first 24 hours. Let's look at the graph of the averaged amplitudes: For the same 7 watches, we see a big difference between the initial amplitudes (after full winding) at t = 0. They all lose significantly in amplitudes after the first 24 hours. Despite this effect, all the watches remain very accurate within the first 24 hours. In addition, all the watches have an average 5-position amplitude above 200° C. This keeps the watches accurate. What has been described so far everybody can see from my two graphs. What you cannot see is that I have sorted the seven watches by 32xx movement type. Watch #1, #2, #3 have 3230 calibers Watch #4, #5 have 3235 calibers Watch #6, #7 have 3285 calibers These three calibers have different "functionalities": 3230: three hands 3235: three hands + date wheel mechanism 3285: three hands + date wheel mechanism + GMT hand I think this can explain the amplitudes graph: as the number of mechanical movement parts increases, friction increases and with it the loss of amplitude after full winding and along the power reserve. We see this for NEW 32xx watches measured by different people with different (but the same type of) timegraphers. Although I am discussing only a very small number of 7 new watches, which is statistically irrelevant, I see a kind of ranking: 3230 are better than 3235, which are better than 3285 watches. This observation confirms what I have observed since a long time for my own 3235 and 3285 watches. My 3285s are worse than my 3235. I do not think this is a coincidence. Below the same graphs, but with additional information on the 32xx movement for each watch.