The 3235 Movement and The Fix (2 years out)

[Driver8]

Wow, up to 10 pages now...

There seems to be two schools of thought here -

The first seems to be saying that we shouldn't worry about it and get on with the bigger things in life.... and on a global/macro level, that's absolutely correct. Health, family, the pandemic, all of that is infinitely more important than whether your watch is (to quote Bas from another thread) "shredding it's seconds wheel pinion" and losing time.

The other school of thought seems to say that the 32xx is clearly a complete lemon that will never be fixed and the heavens will fall.

Personally (and I speak as someone who owns an SD43 that was my most accurate watch for the first 18 months, and now loses upwards of 8 seconds a day irrespective of wear patterns or resting position) I think neither are 100% correct and that the "truth" is somewhere in between.

I have a reasonable collection of watches by a number of brands including a couple by Rolex, and when I pay around £10k for a watch I don't buy it as an "investment", I don't buy it as a safe queen, I don't buy it as non-functional jewellery, and I don't buy it as a paperweight. I buy it to enjoy, to wear, and to tell the time within the manufacturers' stated parameters. I enjoy watches and watch movements, and the level of accuracy that can be achieved from a few springs and wheels never ceases to amaze me.

Obviously the 32xx is new (well, new-ish as I'm not sure if 6 years counts as being new any more) and it's apparently 90% different to the 31xx. Teething issues are to be expected to a certain extent, and I totally get that as all the testing under the sun cannot replicate time spent in the real world on people's wrists. However, there's no getting away from the fact that when you spend the same kind of money on a watch that you could use to buy a perfectly functioning car, then you do expect a certain level of performance. And if that performance fails, you expect transparency from the manufacturer, and you expect the issue to be resolved painlessly and permanently. In both of these last two cases, Rolex are currently failing for those of us with this issue. There's zero transparency (as always with "the Crown"), and there are clearly a number of cases of watches having worn parts replaced with like-for-like, and being sent back out, only for it to happen again in a matter of months. That's not what we pay for.

Should I "just forget about it"? Maybe, as there are clearly more important things in life. But another part of me says, no, it may be "just" a watch, but it's also a reasonably expensive one in the grand scheme of things, and all the while there's a deafening silence coming out of Geneva, both in terms of acknowledging the issue and in terms of a permanent fix, then I for one (due to my personal experience) will not be risking another 32xx powered watch until I hear it's fixed.

[Ashton_Horologist]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

I posted my results the other day. Brand new Sub, low amplitude but good time keeping. I haven't worn the watch too much the past few days but I did throw it on for a few hours last night, it has been running continuously since I did the tests the other day and the overall time keeping was great (within a second or two total in 4 days). When I woke up this morning it was still running but had lost 15 seconds in 8 hours. The timegrapher was showing -97 s/d and 165 amplitude DU, and -180 s/d and 165 amplitude CD.

I gave it 10 winds. -2 s/d and 195 deg, beat error dropped from 1.1ms to 0.0
I gave it 10 more. 0 s/d and 223 deg. 0.1 ms
I gave it 10 more. +2 s/d and 254 deg. 0.2 ms
I gave it 10 more. +2 s/d and 255 deg. 0.2 ms

Those are all dial up. After these 40 winds I did another CD test and it was -6 s/d 199 deg.

I did another 30 winds at this point and I'm still seeing 255 DU and about 204 CD, but timekeeping looks fine.

So a couple of questions come to mind. First, should a proper movement maintain it's timekeeping accuracy to the very last tick of power reserve or is it just a known thing that when you get near the end it all goes to hell?

Second, and again, my watch is brand new, this CAN NOT be the result of wear over time, even a shortish (6 month) period of time. Unless it was somehow damaged in shipping the watch had to be acting this way at the factory. So I must ask, with the loudly touted new timing standards that Rolex put into place to push beyond mere COSC levels, are they not doing a simple amplitude check along the way? Is it really possible that a very low amplitude specimen such as mine would pass all internal QA checks as long as the overall timekeeping was good? Or conversely does this imply that Rolex is completely fine with this amplitude?

To those of you mocking those of us who monitor such things, we'll just have to agree to disagree. A Porsche has an oil pressure gauge for a reason. You could easily have a problem with bearing clearances yet still achieve the factory claimed 0-60 times - for now. But that low oil pressure is a sure indication that things are not well on the inside and problems are coming down the road. How is amplitude not the same thing? And how exactly are we at fault for looking at the oil pressure gauge and seeing it is in the red?

Finally, "cheap timegraphers" were mentioned and given my background with cars and other hobbies I would be the first to concede that not all tools are created equally. I buy Snap-on and Bergeon, not Harbor Freight. They work well and last forever. Easy choice. But yes, in this case I bought the $150 Chinese timegrapher instead of the $2500 one. Being electronic/digital this seemed like the sort of item that would either work or obviously not work. But is there any evidence that these cheaper machines could actually be providing invalid results? This same machine shows 315 degrees DU and 280 degress CD for my 8 year old Speedy Pro. It consistency shows the same amplitude in the same position. It shows higher amplitude with more winds. I.e. it's not giving me any reason to think it is just spitting out garbage numbers.

If any of you have concrete answers that would be great. Sorry, but at this point I'm not real interested in reading more "the 32xx is totally fine because Rolex is awesome" nor "the 32xx is clearly junk because they aren't all perfect" rants. The thread is overflowing with opinions at this point, but if it is to be a service to the members let's try to stick facts - direct owner datapoints, qualified watchmaker observations, etc. Some guy who has never owned a 32xx watch and just wants to congratulate himself on that fact really isn't doing anything for those of us dealing with legitimate issues.

I'm not sure if I'm 'some guy' or a 'qualified watchmaker', either way, I'll take a stab at it.

The tests you have performed aren't really a test Rolex would perform. There are two tests - amplitude maximum at full wind in the horizontal positions and amplitude minimum after 24 hours in the hanging position. This figure happens to be 200 degrees. If your watch is that or above, Rolex considers it fine. I personally consider it too low, especially with a watch with a 70-hour power reserve, but that's another discussion.

In my experience, a watch at full wind with an amplitude of 255 in the horizontal does have a problem if it has recently been serviced or is new. Even if it passes that 200 degrees 24-hour test, I will be willing to be there is increased friction where it shouldn't be. Enter the seconds' wheel or some other issue on a different caliber.

The wear is real, the point is it just needs to go in for a warranty repair to be fixed. Has Rolex seemed to have come up with a solution yet? No, it doesn't appear that they have. But they will. Just like all other calibers that have come out.

Are you aware that oiling practices constantly change? Axles have used grease at some points, they have been epilamed, they have used oils, then they weren't epilamed. Are all of you that sent watches in for service when a particular practice changed jumping up and down because you receved inferior service? No, because you didn't know about it. Perhaps you had to send your watch in for service sooner because at that time when oiling method was used and it wasn't the best. That ended up costing you.

I spent many days as Toronto RSC fixing warranty repairs. Axles that dried out prematurely and caused havoc through a movement. Sometimes the watches were one year old. The axles were changed, lubricated, and given back. But wait, that wore out preaturely. What about when the warranty ran out? If the axle needed changing after 1 year, what about when I have it changed 5 times and then I don't have a warranty? Then I'll have to pay. I'm sure you get my point here

We need to look only at the 4130. It didn't even really have an issue but Rolex made modifications and updates to make it better. Did you know that every time your Daytona with a 4130 goes in for service the parts are changed and upgraded to the better version? Did Rolex have to do that for you? No. But why do they - because they have built their reputation on customer service.

The 32xx has a problem. It will be fixed, and it won't end up costing you a King's ransom to do so. Rolex will make it right, just like they have in the past.

I'm not going to flog a dead horse any longer...

[Ashton_Horologist]

Oh, and to answer your previous question - no, watches won't keep accurate time until the last tick. It will vary.

[thorm]

Originally Posted by padi56

And speaking for myself been having a battle with the big C, been is hospital several times over the last few years and now this pandemic. So the most important thing for me as if I wake up and can see the time on my watch, I am still alive now thats far more important than fretting over a few seconds on any 32 series watch.

I'm so sorry to hear about that. My parents had it as well. I wish you all the best.

[TswaneNguni]

Originally Posted by Ashton_Horologist

Oh, and to answer your previous question - no, watches won't keep accurate time until the last tick. It will vary.

IWC Le Petit Prince Big Pilot ,8 day power reserve ,Fully wound it runs +10s/day ,At Day 5 at around zero and then goes slower .

[sevykor]

Originally Posted by Ashton_Horologist

You still didn’t answer my question. You’re blaming the wheel for it going back three times but you really don’t know if that was it, do you? It may well have been it, but it also could have been something else. You’re fuelling this giant fire that has been lit to keep a teddy bear warm. Seems like a waste of good fire wood...

I’m not certain you are referencing the correct post. I didn’t make mention of a “wheel” and I’m not fueling a giant fire. What you may see as a fire is rather shedding light for those who have gone or may go through what I experienced. If this post upsets anyone because of the content, I advise that person refrain from reading any more posts.

I believe it irritates many people here that they unknowingly potentially purchased a subpar product. I am happy and hopeful for those of you who haven’t had any issues with their movement. I do not believe in silencing what I believe are Rolex’s shortcomings nor do I wish to turn a “fan-boy blind eye” to the fore mentioned issues. The issues with the 3235 are well documented in this thread by many people. I made an account of the issues that I experienced so that maybe the discussion here ultimately finds a fix to the issue. Issues with the 3235 are NOT to be taken lightly when so many experience the same issues.

The amplitude is rather irrelevant to me when the watch loses 15 seconds or more per day when fully wound. There is no user error. My AD is equipped with a watchmaker and the tools to confirm the need to have the watch sent to a RSC. They, not me, have done so 3 times over the course of almost 3 years because of issues they confirmed through their investigation and diagnostic procedures.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by Ashton_Horologist

I'm not sure if I'm 'some guy' or a 'qualified watchmaker', either way, I'll take a stab at it.

The tests you have performed aren't really a test Rolex would perform. There are two tests - amplitude maximum at full wind in the horizontal positions and amplitude minimum after 24 hours in the hanging position. This figure happens to be 200 degrees. If your watch is that or above, Rolex considers it fine. I personally consider it too low, especially with a watch with a 70-hour power reserve, but that's another discussion.

In my experience, a watch at full wind with an amplitude of 255 in the horizontal does have a problem if it has recently been serviced or is new. Even if it passes that 200 degrees 24-hour test, I will be willing to be there is increased friction where it shouldn't be. Enter the seconds' wheel or some other issue on a different caliber.

The wear is real, the point is it just needs to go in for a warranty repair to be fixed. Has Rolex seemed to have come up with a solution yet? No, it doesn't appear that they have. But they will. Just like all other calibers that have come out.

Are you aware that oiling practices constantly change? Axles have used grease at some points, they have been epilamed, they have used oils, then they weren't epilamed. Are all of you that sent watches in for service when a particular practice changed jumping up and down because you receved inferior service? No, because you didn't know about it. Perhaps you had to send your watch in for service sooner because at that time when oiling method was used and it wasn't the best. That ended up costing you.

I spent many days as Toronto RSC fixing warranty repairs. Axles that dried out prematurely and caused havoc through a movement. Sometimes the watches were one year old. The axles were changed, lubricated, and given back. But wait, that wore out preaturely. What about when the warranty ran out? If the axle needed changing after 1 year, what about when I have it changed 5 times and then I don't have a warranty? Then I'll have to pay. I'm sure you get my point here

We need to look only at the 4130. It didn't even really have an issue but Rolex made modifications and updates to make it better. Did you know that every time your Daytona with a 4130 goes in for service the parts are changed and upgraded to the better version? Did Rolex have to do that for you? No. But why do they - because they have built their reputation on customer service.

The 32xx has a problem. It will be fixed, and it won't end up costing you a King's ransom to do so. Rolex will make it right, just like they have in the past.

I'm not going to flog a dead horse any longer...

THANK YOU. You are definitely the "qualified watchmaker", not the "some guy". And apologies for the remarks you received from "Dirt". I feel obligated to tell others that I reached out to Ashton outside of the forums to get his opinion on my results several days ago and provided a link to this thread. So I feel a bit responsible for dragging him into this food fight :) I contacted him specifically because a) he has impressive credentials and experience and b) is known not to sugar coat his opinions of the 32xx movement. In other words, I felt he could be relied upon to give an unbiased, but expert, opinion on these matters.

I actually called RSC the other day and they more or less told me there's nothing to do at this time. Of course it wasn't a very satisfying conversation with the service rep in that they seemed that they were more reading from a script than speaking from any real knowledge of watch movements. They simply told me if the watch is brand new and keeping good time then it doesn't need to be sent in regardless of the amplitude. Then followed up with "the watch won't need service until 8-10 years". Right.

So, for now I have no choice but to keep it well wound and wait until there is some indication that Rolex figures out how to fix this. I really struggle to understand how this could be so hard to figure out, at least in terms of trying a different part. Bas suggested he and others at RSC thought it was a CNC machining issue. Surely Rolex HQ has seen the worn out pivots like he showed us. How hard could it be to punch in a different pivot diameter in the CAD software and start sending those to RSC to try?

I had a Nissan GT-R that in its first four model years went through 3 design updates on a bearing housing. Yeah it would have been nice if Nissan could have nailed the fix on the first iteration, but at least they were making changes and trying it out. As well, the transmissions had incremental changes present even in the middle of model years. There was a continuous feedback loop between problems found in the field and updates coming from the factory. All car companies do this. The 32xx has been around over 5 years. Has it really not changed at all other than the guidance to put some extra lube in one spot? And even then, couldn't we assume that this lube is present on my brand new model? Yet the problem is seemingly still present. So yes, it quite simply degrades the ownership experience. Is this a severe problem in the context of our current world? Of course not. But by that metric I shouldn't care that my roof is leaking either, or that the A/C went out in my car. Sounds a bit silly to frame everything as either "life and death" or "something else".

[csaltphoto]

For those who are discouraged with multiple RSC repairs on their 32xx movements there is the "lemon law", at least in the US. You can request a repair or replacement if the seller cannot remedy the problem after a reasonable number of attempts. You can also recover legal fees.

"There are two sources of protection which are of great interest to consumers: the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Consumer Protection Act. Keep these in mind when ANY product you buy does not perform as it should. The Magnuson Moss Warranty Act (“The Act”) is a Federal law that protects buyers of virtually any goods sold in the US which came with an express written warranty. The law is sometimes called the “Federal Lemon Law” but do not think that it applies only to cars and trucks. It applies to any consumer goods which cost more than $25.00, if those goods came with a warranty. Under the Act, a manufacturer may designate its warranties as “Full” or “Limited,” but they must do so clearly. If a manufacturer, or someone else who is obligated under the warranty, fails to remedy a defect as spelled out in the warranty after a reasonable number of repair attempts, the Act requires the manufacturer to either refund the purchase price or replace the product."

[uhren917]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

THANK YOU. ...".

+1

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by padi56

Well in the real world even some what many would call very low end movements can run well inside todays COSC spec. Take the Seagull Chinese made ST19 mechanical movement when regulated correctly can run to a average +2 seconds daily rate cost of movement just $60.Agree about Rolex reliability but many movements and watch brands can run to Rolex spec.But like Rolex they will need SOME regulation in there life to keep it there. And today we all pay a high price for all designer stuff and the watch brand names on the dials. And speaking for myself been having a battle with the big C, been is hospital several times over the last few years and now this pandemic. So the most important thing for me as if I wake up and can see the time on my watch, I am still alive now thats far more important than fretting over a few seconds on any 32 series watch.

I've just read your post now Peter. Mine was right after yours but it was just a coincidence not meaning to disregard what you're saying.

[maxbelg]

Originally Posted by uhren917

I disagree. People have a right to think for themselves and the arguments being made here are reasonable.

Most people know their own bodies better than some physicians. My wife had a miscarriage once due to negligence.

Same holds true with watches.

Experts are fallible and so is Rolex.

I'm so sorry to hear about your wife's miscarriage. I don't agree however that people know their bodies better than some physicians and watch owners know their watches better than some watchmaker though....

What I'm suggesting is that we can wait for obvious problems like timing changes (loosing many seconds per day) and then get the experts to sort it out. It's unfortunate that there are teething issues, but this is not uncommon in new movements, even new movements by Rolex. What has changed is that everybody writes about it in online watch-forums, creating the perception that the problem is bigger and more prevalent than what it actually is. I believe that is what Ashton tried to explain, issues are common in various new movements and will be sorted out in future with updates.

[TswaneNguni]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

So, for now I have no choice but to keep it well wound and wait until there is some indication that Rolex figures out how to fix this. I really struggle to understand how this could be so hard to figure out, at least in terms of trying a different part. Bas suggested he and others at RSC thought it was a CNC machining issue. Surely Rolex HQ has seen the worn out pivots like he showed us. How hard could it be to punch in a different pivot diameter in the CAD software and start sending those to RSC to try?

Well,this is what most of us is wondering .
It should be an easy fix for an illustrious company like Rolex .
This is not the 70s or 80s ,its a modern era ,it shouldnt go through teething problems taking years to fix .

[Annan]

Unsure where or when I saw this but........I recall someone commented that the DJ updated dials with a small crown between SWISS and MADE would indicate the 3235 movement within was a later release. The implication being that it was less likely to have the problems of the first movements released in 2016. I doubt things can be that simple. Comments?

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by Ashton_Horologist

The 32xx has a problem. It will be fixed, and it won't end up costing you a King's ransom to do so. Rolex will make it right, just like they have in the past.

..

Oh this is so well said....

[maxbelg]

Originally Posted by Annan

Unsure where or when I saw this but........I recall someone commented that the DJ updated dials with a small crown between SWISS and MADE would indicate the 3235 movement within was a later release. The implication being that it was less likely to have the problems of the first movements released in 2016. I doubt things can be that simple. Comments?

There isn't a permanent fix yet as we've heard, but I would think that probably all 32xx movements now only leave Rolex with oiling of the pivot, so that the issue will present much later or even not become an issue before the next routine service. From my understanding the lack of lubrication of the early 32xx movements caused early problems, whether that coincides with the small crown I wouldn't know.

[Nicolamilton]

Does anyone know an approximate number of cases that have been related in TRF?
Thanks

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by alphadweller

Would love to, but they're no longer available in new watches, unfortunately.

There's nothing wrong with vintage
At least they are well known to keep good time and even make it beyond the 2 year service warranty before serious damage occurs

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by uhren917

I disagree. People have a right to think for themselves and the arguments being made here are reasonable.

Most people know their own bodies better than some physicians. My wife had a miscarriage once due to negligence.

Same holds true with watches.

Experts are fallible and so is Rolex.

Agreed.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by maxbelg

There isn't a permanent fix yet as we've heard, but I would think that probably all 32xx movements now only leave Rolex with oiling of the pivot, so that the issue will present much later or even not become an issue before the next routine service. From my understanding the lack of lubrication of the early 32xx movements caused early problems, whether that coincides with the small crown I wouldn't know.

Sadly it has already been established that the lubrication of the pivot is not a viable solution.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by thorm

I'm so sorry to hear about that. My parents had it as well. I wish you all the best.

It took my father as well.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by amanbra

Guys he actually doesn’t know what the issue is and how’s affected a whole bunch of us multiple times over -_-...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

True enough and understandable.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

THANK YOU. You are definitely the "qualified watchmaker", not the "some guy". And apologies for the remarks you received from "Dirt". I feel obligated to tell others that I reached out to Ashton outside of the forums to get his opinion on my results several days ago and provided a link to this thread. So I feel a bit responsible for dragging him into this food fight :) I contacted him specifically because a) he has impressive credentials and experience and b) is known not to sugar coat his opinions of the 32xx movement. In other words, I felt he could be relied upon to give an unbiased, but expert, opinion on these matters.

I actually called RSC the other day and they more or less told me there's nothing to do at this time. Of course it wasn't a very satisfying conversation with the service rep in that they seemed that they were more reading from a script than speaking from any real knowledge of watch movements. They simply told me if the watch is brand new and keeping good time then it doesn't need to be sent in regardless of the amplitude. Then followed up with "the watch won't need service until 8-10 years". Right.

So, for now I have no choice but to keep it well wound and wait until there is some indication that Rolex figures out how to fix this. I really struggle to understand how this could be so hard to figure out, at least in terms of trying a different part. Bas suggested he and others at RSC thought it was a CNC machining issue. Surely Rolex HQ has seen the worn out pivots like he showed us. How hard could it be to punch in a different pivot diameter in the CAD software and start sending those to RSC to try?

I had a Nissan GT-R that in its first four model years went through 3 design updates on a bearing housing. Yeah it would have been nice if Nissan could have nailed the fix on the first iteration, but at least they were making changes and trying it out. As well, the transmissions had incremental changes present even in the middle of model years. There was a continuous feedback loop between problems found in the field and updates coming from the factory. All car companies do this. The 32xx has been around over 5 years. Has it really not changed at all other than the guidance to put some extra lube in one spot? And even then, couldn't we assume that this lube is present on my brand new model? Yet the problem is seemingly still present. So yes, it quite simply degrades the ownership experience. Is this a severe problem in the context of our current world? Of course not. But by that metric I shouldn't care that my roof is leaking either, or that the A/C went out in my car. Sounds a bit silly to frame everything as either "life and death" or "something else".

With regard to your Nissan.
The volume was extremely low and it was a design issue.

These problematic parts? in this movement currently being discussed are mass produced to a high tolerance.
It's not like Rolex have to reinvent the wheel on this and it's not unreasonable to expect QC to have picked it up.
Perhaps it is as simple as a part that's poorly made?
But it doesn't properly account for multiple trips back to the RSC and we are years down the track

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Annan

Unsure where or when I saw this but........I recall someone commented that the DJ updated dials with a small crown between SWISS and MADE would indicate the 3235 movement within was a later release. The implication being that it was less likely to have the problems of the first movements released in 2016. I doubt things can be that simple. Comments?

I hope it is that simple.
But it doesn't appear that way

[3581512]

Originally Posted by Ashton_Horologist

We need to look only at the 4130. It didn't even really have an issue but Rolex made modifications and updates to make it better. Did you know that every time your Daytona with a 4130 goes in for service the parts are changed and upgraded to the better version? Did Rolex have to do that for you? No. But why do they - because they have built their reputation on customer service.

The 32xx has a problem. It will be fixed, and it won't end up costing you a King's ransom to do so. Rolex will make it right, just like they have in the past.

I'm not going to flog a dead horse any longer...

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by TswaneNguni

Well,this is what most of us is wondering .
It should be an easy fix for an illustrious company like Rolex .
This is not the 70s or 80s ,its a modern era ,it shouldnt go through teething problems taking years to fix .

I have to agree.
If it was an easily identifiable manufacturing fault of some description. There wouldn't be any further speculation at Rolex. It would be well and truly sorted by the third trip back within a few years.

I'm sure that is what has us most concerned.

[uhren917]

Originally Posted by maxbelg

I'm so sorry to hear about your wife's miscarriage. I don't agree however that people know their bodies better than some physicians and watch owners know their watches better than some watchmaker though....

What I'm suggesting is that we can wait for obvious problems like timing changes (loosing many seconds per day) and then get the experts to sort it out. It's unfortunate that there are teething issues, but this is not uncommon in new movements, even new movements by Rolex. What has changed is that everybody writes about it in online watch-forums, creating the perception that the problem is bigger and more prevalent than what it actually is. I believe that is what Ashton tried to explain, issues are common in various new movements and will be sorted out in future with updates.

I too come from a medical background.

While it isnt advisable for patients to poke around themselves with a scalpel, I highly encourage those same people to self examine themselves with the stethoscope (if they got it) you mentioned in your previous post. The first part of any accurate diagnosis is for the patient themselves to be able to best describe their own medical history.

Putting your own watch on a time-grapher and making some of your own self assessment isnt the same as taking the watch apart and doing your own repair.

In another example, who takes their cars to the shop and say " you are the expert, fix it I have no clue what's going on?!!". The people I know who do that get billed big $$ in some unscrupulous cases. Just because I have some advanced degrees, I dont claim to know everything.

[HiBoost]

Dirt my friend, somebody has to teach you about the "multi-quote" feature.

As far as the 6 o'clock crown signifying anything, I'd say no. As far as the 32xx's inclusion in the new Sub signifying anything, again, no. I have a brand new Sub and by all accounts I also have very low amplitude. Significant time loss may or may not be in my short term future, but I'd be surprised to hear any expert claim my watch is 100% with these amplitude values.

That said, I just returned from my AD where I put down a deposit on a pair of special order Datejusts for my wife and I (a 41 and a 31). 15 year anniversary this Sept, and the modern gift is "watches" so I'll be damned if I'm missing this opportunity just because Rolex doesn't know how to build a movement (Kidding. Sort of). But I am truly of the mindset that it will eventually get sorted and then I'll be happy for the long term. As well, if my AD calls tomorrow and tells me a Kermit is available I'll buy that too. I want the watches I want, for good or bad, and I'll simply never be happy buying some other brand because I was scared the watch I actually wanted wouldn't be perfect.

[goodolejr]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Indeed, a very interesting point for the new (2020) caliber.
About 6 (six) years have passed since the introduction of the 32xx movement series at Baselworld 2015, which first saw the 3255.

This raises a point of interest for me. It seems like all the timekeeping issues with the 32xx have been raised by folks with a DJ41, SD43, and / or GMT.

Has anyone with a DD40 experienced this issue?

[amanbra]

I think Ashton is a tad tone deaf here and spoke up not fully understanding the issue. It is a problem when you buy a watch from a brand who you have full trust in their ability and it turns out a fair few of us are having repeated issues where the watch for me is not usable. Sorry if my watch is running -30-50 seconds a day that is simply not usable for me and it's defective product. The fact that the watch has been to service before and in 5 months it's starting to show the symptoms again is quite frankly pathetic. If my car show the same issue as a warranty fix 5 months ago it'd be a lemon. If it affected a heap of other people it would be a mass recall.

Finally for those who are like there are more important things in the world to worry about then stick a huge sign up on the forum.

"Climate change, C Virus, Cancer, poverty, murder, rape are more important than Rolex issues so stop talking about it at the Rolex Forum"

[goodolejr]

Originally Posted by amanbra

I think Ashton is a tad tone deaf here and spoke up not fully understanding the issue. It is a problem when you buy a watch from a brand who you have full trust in their ability and it turns out a fair few of us are having repeated issues where the watch for me is not usable. Sorry if my watch is running -30-50 seconds a day that is simply not usable for me and it's defective product. The fact that the watch has been to service before and in 5 months it's starting to show the symptoms again is quite frankly pathetic. If my car show the same issue as a warranty fix 5 months ago it'd be a lemon. If it affected a heap of other people it would be a mass recall.

Finally for those who are like there are more important things in the world to worry about then stick a huge sign up on the forum.

"Climate change, C Virus, Cancer, poverty, murder, rape are more important than Rolex issues so stop talking about it at the Rolex Forum"

Well said.