32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Easy E

Sooooo….is this an issue with Day Date 40s?

It is not a question of the Rolex model but the movement. The Day-Date 40 (caliber 3255) was released at Basel 2015.

The photo below indicates that the caliber is regulated in 5 (not 6) positions and COSC certified under specific conditions at temperatures of 8 °C, 23 °C, and 38 °C.

[Easy E]

I'm quite new at this whole movement measurement / evaluation business and have a couple questions (more later). First up, what is the Beat Error? Like, what is that measuring and how does that, if at all, relate to spd and amplitude, or even beat rate? With all of the measurements I have taken over the last week or two the BE has been consistent - average of about .12 across all measured watches. How is it, or what is the relation of amp:be:beat:spd? How can the beat be 28800 and a super consistent BE, yet the amplitude and spd are all over the board? That indicates to me that BE and Beat are linked but I have seen low amplitude with ok -spd, but for sure when spd drops out the amp is way down. Am I thinking about this wrong?

[saxo3]

Answers to your questions about beat error, amplitude, and rates you might find here:
https://wahawatches.com/watch-talk-w...or-of-a-watch/
https://wahawatches.com/watch-talk-w...de-of-a-watch/
https://wahawatches.com/watch-talk-w...te-of-a-watch/

[Lunaen]

A video that I watched on youtube suggested that a possible reason for the low amplitude and poor timekeeping is the balance staff. Apparently the balance staff in the 32XX movements (which connects the balance spring to the bridge) is attached differently than in the 31XX. The new attachment method for the staff is more susceptible to loosening over time, which would impact the amplitude.

[sheldonsmith]

Originally Posted by Lunaen

A video that I watched on youtube suggested that a possible reason for the low amplitude and poor timekeeping is the balance staff. Apparently the balance staff in the 32XX movements (which connects the balance spring to the bridge) is attached differently than in the 31XX. The new attachment method for the staff is more susceptible to loosening over time, which would impact the amplitude.

What is the link or title to search?

This article describes how the balance staff is different:
https://www.precisionhorology.com/post/ljbhl (Download the .pdf)

It states:
<snip>
Balance Assembly
The balance in the 3235 is fairly similar to that of the 3135. It’s fitted with a Parachrom balance spring and Paraflex shock absorbers. This is the same set-up as a modern 3135 fitted into a Datejust II, so no real change there. However, the 3235 does come fitted with a new take on an old classic: a friction-fit balance staff. No more riveting balance staffs to the balances, making sure you aren’t hammering them out of flat, no checking to see whether the rivet actually holds (however, you should always check your work). Rolex claims makes is that the balance will not need poising every time, and that is a claim that I can verify, having changed many of these balance staffs, and only around half needed poising. I have to say, this is a great feature, and fun to play around with. It is a part that can still be hand-turned if required and will ensure a greater life-span to a balance. There is no risk of cutting too far when turning off the rivet in the lathe or hammering out the existing rivet. This is a great modern feature that will serve the industry well. It won’t be the last friction-fit balance staff we see.
<snip>

[Lunaen]

Originally Posted by sheldonsmith

What is the link or title to search?

This article describes how the balance staff is different:
https://www.precisionhorology.com/post/ljbhl (Download the .pdf)

It states:
<snip>
Balance Assembly
The balance in the 3235 is fairly similar to that of the 3135. It’s fitted with a Parachrom balance spring and Paraflex shock absorbers. This is the same set-up as a modern 3135 fitted into a Datejust II, so no real change there. However, the 3235 does come fitted with a new take on an old classic: a friction-fit balance staff. No more riveting balance staffs to the balances, making sure you aren’t hammering them out of flat, no checking to see whether the rivet actually holds (however, you should always check your work). Rolex claims makes is that the balance will not need poising every time, and that is a claim that I can verify, having changed many of these balance staffs, and only around half needed poising. I have to say, this is a great feature, and fun to play around with. It is a part that can still be hand-turned if required and will ensure a greater life-span to a balance. There is no risk of cutting too far when turning off the rivet in the lathe or hammering out the existing rivet. This is a great modern feature that will serve the industry well. It won’t be the last friction-fit balance staff we see.
<snip>

Here is the link to the video. However, it is in Chinese (albeit with English subtitles) so it may be difficult to understand. If the balance staff is friction fit on the 32XX, it does make sense that it can come loose over time. I don't know too much about the technical aspects of movements but in my opinion having such a part securely fastened with a rivet carries greater piece of mind than being friction fit.
Edit: around the 3:30 mark is when the watchmaker begins to discuss the balance staff.

[atxwatch]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Look at the poll results after nearly 2 years. About 3/4 of the 32xx owners voted their movements have no issues.





22.12.2022



Some members with several 32xx watches (3 and more) had 100 % failures, i.e., defect movements identified within about 1-3 years after purchase date. Look at the recent data posted by member EasyE. All his three 3235 have the issue, purchsse dates are 2020 and 2021.



A summary what we know I posted one month ago (3161 and 3182).

I did look at this and most other posts in this thread...what if most answer the poll right after they buy the watch? That would explain a low incidence AND the consistent error among those who are measuring on a timegrapher...

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by atxwatch

I did look at this and most other posts in this thread...what if most answer the poll right after they buy the watch? That would explain a low incidence AND the consistent error among those who are measuring on a timegrapher...

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Possible, but very unlikely.

[sheldonsmith]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Possible, but very unlikely.

Yes, that would have me… 126600 was fine [for 6 months] until it wasn’t… There is no way to change a vote in the poll once submitted…

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by sheldonsmith

Yes, that would have me… 126600 was fine [for 6 months] until it wasn’t… There is no way to change a vote in the poll once submitted…

Our people without timegraphers were reporting results based on timekeeping alone.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by sheldonsmith

Yes, that would have me… 126600 was fine [for 6 months] until it wasn’t… There is no way to change a vote in the poll once submitted…

Sheldon, you could not know that when you voted

As for the interpretation of the poll:

There are 4 times more poll voters than different contributors to the thread (see post #2972). That means the majority voted but did not post in this thread. Therefore, nobody knows why they voted no issues (or issues).

Very long before the expiration of Rolex's 5-year warranty, all my 32xx watches significantly degraded in maximum amplitude values (after full winding) and eventually showed unacceptable timekeeping rates. Other members with several 32xx watches had the same problems, e.g. amanbra, CharlesN, Easy E ...)

I have NOT even seen 1 (one) contribution on TRF where a member has shown that his 32xx watch keeps (or kept) high movement amplitudes (after full winding) together with good timekeeping over a period of several years.

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by saxo3

I have NOT even seen 1 (one) contribution on TRF where a member has shown that his 32xx watch keeps (or kept) high movement amplitudes (after full winding) together with good timekeeping over a period of several years.

May I suggest that the reason you have not seen a Rolex 32xx equipped watch that keeps High Amplitudes after prolonged periods is because they quite simply don’t.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

May I suggest that the reason you have not seen a Rolex 32xx equipped watch that keeps High Amplitudes after prolonged periods is because they quite simply don’t.

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by saxo3

I have NOT even seen 1 (one) contribution on TRF where a member has shown that his 32xx watch keeps (or kept) high movement amplitudes (after full winding) together with good timekeeping over a period of several years.

Being the new dude to this thread I have another question regarding this. I can except low amplitude if that is the design intent, mind you degrading amplitude is whole different deal. However, have you seen any reports of the 32XX running fast, like in the +2 spd or higher range?

Currently I’m tracking 5 for 5 on crap amplitude over time and all run slow. (Saxo, data will follow next week).

[sheldonsmith]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Sheldon, you could not know that when you voted

<snip>

I have NOT even seen 1 (one) contribution on TRF where a member has shown that his 32xx watch keeps (or kept) high movement amplitudes (after full winding) together with good timekeeping over a period of several years.

Yes, agreed that I have yet to see a consistent accuracy on a 32xx movement with a visit to an RSC; in my case 2x to an RSC before it behaved.

On the first part, I suppose I misunderstood the question

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Easy E

Being the new dude to this thread I have another question regarding this. I can except low amplitude if that is the design intent, mind you degrading amplitude is whole different deal. However, have you seen any reports of the 32XX running fast, like in the +2 spd or higher range?

Currently I’m tracking 5 for 5 on crap amplitude over time and all run slow. (Saxo, data will follow next week).

Yes sure, e.g., my Sea-Dweller 126600 was running fast with a X-rate of about +4 s/d, after full winding and during a rather long time of the power reserve. Here are the corresponding timegrapher results:


Sea-Dweller Ref. 126600 (3235) after full winding

In general, the watch accuracy on your wrist strongly depends on your wearing pattern and how the movement was regulated. You can compensate (either gain or lose) overnight by placing your watch in different rest positions.

An example (my SD43) how one can obtain excellent timekeeping over a period of (at least) 2 months you can find here:

https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...4&postcount=23

There was no particular reason to stop after 64 days except that I wanted to wear another watch.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by sheldonsmith

Yes, agreed that I have yet to see a consistent accuracy on a 32xx movement with a visit to an RSC; in my case 2x to an RSC before it behaved.

On the first part, I suppose I misunderstood the question

I remember you posting that you had sold all your 32xx watches?
Is that correct or you still own the 126600?

[sheldonsmith]

Yes correct… both are gone. Now I have a 3135 and 3130

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Easy E

Being the new dude to this thread I have another question regarding this. I can except low amplitude if that is the design intent, mind you degrading amplitude is whole different deal. However, have you seen any reports of the 32XX running fast, like in the +2 spd or higher range?

Currently I’m tracking 5 for 5 on crap amplitude over time and all run slow. (Saxo, data will follow next week).

Whether the movement was designed to run properly with low amplitudes or not is something we will never know.
As with all things and watch movements are no exception, it may have been a compromise situation where Rolex chose to live with the consequences of characteristicaly low amplitude compared with accepted industry norms.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by sheldonsmith

Yes correct… both are gone. Now I have a 3135 and 3130

Are you in a happier place?

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

May I suggest that the reason you have not seen a Rolex 32xx equipped watch that keeps High Amplitudes after prolonged periods is because they quite simply don’t.

That‘s not the case. After first RSC repair my Sea-Dweller (3235) kept very high amplitudes for about 26 months before all three vertical amplitudes broke in again. Agaim the fact (with added clarification in italic):

I have NOT even seen 1 (one) contribution on TRF where a member has shown 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.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Sheldon, you could not know that when you voted

As for the interpretation of the poll:

There are 4 times more poll voters than different contributors to the thread (see post #2972). That means the majority voted but did not post in this thread. Therefore, nobody knows why they voted no issues (or issues).

Very long before the expiration of Rolex's 5-year warranty, all my 32xx watches significantly degraded in maximum amplitude values (after full winding) and eventually showed unacceptable timekeeping rates. Other members with several 32xx watches had the same problems, e.g. amanbra, CharlesN, Easy E ...)

I have NOT even seen 1 (one) contribution on TRF where a member has shown that his 32xx watch keeps (or kept) high movement amplitudes (after full winding) together with good timekeeping over a period of several years.

Originally Posted by CharlesN

May I suggest that the reason you have not seen a Rolex 32xx equipped watch that keeps High Amplitudes after prolonged periods is because they quite simply don’t.

Originally Posted by Dirt

Whether the movement was designed to run properly with low amplitudes or not is something we will never know.
As with all things and watch movements are no exception, it may have been a compromise situation where Rolex chose to live with the consequences of characteristicaly low amplitude compared with accepted industry norms.

Once there is a “fix” perhaps we’ll finally know whether the movement was designed to run accurately for prolonged periods at low amplitude, and for some reason wasn’t doing that, or if the low amplitude itself is in fact a result of the main, still unsolved, problem.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Yes sure, e.g., my Sea-Dweller 126600 was running fast with a X-rate of about +4 s/d, after full winding and during a rather long time of the power reserve. Here are the corresponding timegrapher results:


Sea-Dweller Ref. 126600 (3235) after full winding

In general, the watch accuracy on your wrist strongly depends on your wearing pattern and how the movement was regulated. You can compensate (either gain or lose) overnight by placing your watch in different rest positions.

An example (my SD43) how one can obtain excellent timekeeping over a period of (at least) 2 months you can find here:

https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...4&postcount=23

There was no particular reason to stop after 64 days except that I wanted to wear another watch.

In support of this, the time gain overnight (watch always dial up) is far more consistent than the differential during the day. The one I currently wear most gains +1.2 to 1.5 each night (that’s total gain, not per day rate - length of “overnight” varies). However, on my wrist during the day it’s got a typical range of about -0.1 to +0.8. Again, that’s total delta, not per day rate.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by dannyp

In support of this, the time gain overnight (watch always dial up) is far more consistent than the differential during the day. The one I currently wear most gains +1.2 to 1.5 each night (that’s total gain, not per day rate - length of “overnight” varies). However, on my wrist during the day it’s got a typical range of about -0.1 to +0.8. Again, that’s total delta, not per day rate.

I had a quick read through all of your 150 posts since August 2021 in this thread.

Only in a few posts you reported about your Explorer 124270 (caliber 3230) bought in May 2021.

The timekeeping seemed to be stable and then started to degrade a bit.

In April 2022 the timekeeping of your 3230 was -5 s/d and the amplitude "lowish 241" (your post 2385)

https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...postcount=2385

From May 2021 to April 2022 the movement had degraded significantly.

What happened to your 3230 watch since April?

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by saxo3

I had a quick read through all of your 150 posts since August 2021 in this thread.

Only in a few posts you reported about your Explorer 124270 (caliber 3230) bought in May 2021.

The timekeeping seemed to be stable and then started to degrade a bit.

In April 2022 the timekeeping of your 3230 was -5 s/d and the amplitude "lowish 241" (your post 2385)

https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...postcount=2385

From May 2021 to April 2022 the movement had degraded significantly.

What happened to your 3230 watch since April?

Different watch.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Different watch.

What? I asked what happened to your 3230 watch since April 2022.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by saxo3

What? I asked what happened to your 3230 watch since April 2022.

No longer have that watch, I'm talking about a different one, which I've had for about 5mos and also has a 3230.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by dannyp

No longer have that watch

Understood.

It would be interesting to get some more technical information about this first watch (bought in May 2021) because 3230 issue reports are rare.

Did it further degrade in rates and amplitudes? You have some numbers?

Did you sell this watch before or after RSC repair?

You own a timegrapher now or consider to buy one for the 3230 watch you have since 5 months?

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Answers to your questions about beat error, amplitude, and rates you might find here:
https://wahawatches.com/watch-talk-w...or-of-a-watch/
https://wahawatches.com/watch-talk-w...de-of-a-watch/
https://wahawatches.com/watch-talk-w...te-of-a-watch/

These are great - simple, easy to read. Thanks for the links.

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Yes sure, e.g., my Sea-Dweller 126600 was running fast with a X-rate of about +4 s/d, after full winding and during a rather long time of the power reserve. Here are the corresponding timegrapher results:


Sea-Dweller Ref. 126600 (3235) after full winding

In general, the watch accuracy on your wrist strongly depends on your wearing pattern and how the movement was regulated. You can compensate (either gain or lose) overnight by placing your watch in different rest positions.

An example (my SD43) how one can obtain excellent timekeeping over a period of (at least) 2 months you can find here:

https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...4&postcount=23

There was no particular reason to stop after 64 days except that I wanted to wear another watch.

I see this, but with your higher spd rate your amplitude(s) are also higher = at least relative to most of mine. Is there an example of spd + with too low amplitude?

Also, from one of the articles you sent:

"It’s inversely proportional to the amplitude. That means that a decline in amplitude will cause the rate to increase."

I think this makes sense to me. Yet, in each of my cases so far I see exactly the opposite. Amplitude drops and spd drops accordingly. This is also what I have been able to gather from this thread. Low = low.