If Rolex decreased the power reserve to 48 hours…

[sevykor]

Power reserve has never been even close to the top of considerations when buying a watch. If that were the case, quartz watches win. A fix to the 32 would be more welcoming than going to a 33. Rolex owes to those who own a 32 to get it right.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[KatGirl]

Could Rolex start quietly placing the new 3300 series movements into 3200 series watches, when sent in for warranty service? I’m guessing they could NOT do this, because the serial number is on the movement……

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by KatGirl

Could Rolex start quietly placing the new 3300 series movements into 3200 series watches, when sent in for warranty service? I’m guessing they could NOT do this, because the serial number is on the movement……

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Serial numbers are not an issue in the slightest.
At the end of the day, Rolex are the sole gatekeeper of the serial numbers and they are the only ones that keep the records

[Moskus99]

I’d like to see them go back to 48 but increase the beat rate. Give us a hi beat 10bps movement and forget the enhanced power reserve.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by Moskus99

I’d like to see them go back to 48 but increase the beat rate. Give us a hi beat 10bps movement and forget the enhanced power reserve.

It would be tough for Rolex to release a hi-beat 10bps movement with much fanfare nowadays, more than half a century after Seiko.

[Henrimontgomery]

Originally Posted by 1William

Solve the whole situation and go with a manual wind movement with a three to eight day power reserve. Panerai does this well and so does Omega with some versions of the Speedmaster.

Blasphemy! How can you call them oyster perpetual then?

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by KatGirl

Could Rolex start quietly placing the new 3300 series movements into 3200 series watches, when sent in for warranty service? I’m guessing they could NOT do this, because the serial number is on the movement……

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Do case and movement numbers even match on a Rolex? The watch's "official" serial number (in the eyes of Rolex) is whatever is engraved on the case (around the rehaut or between the lugs). I know there is a number engraved on the movement, but I'm not sure whether it matches the serial, or is merely matched to the serial in some Rolex archive.

Either way, cases and movements are sometimes swapped at service, so it would just be a notation - something about needing a new movement with no additional explanation besides a notation on paperwork.

[Harry-57]

A 30-40 hour power reserve would do me fine. If I really like a watch and it's is a self winder, the power reserve is the last thing I look at, if I consider it at all. I doubt we'll be going back there. Marketing, loss of face, bragging rights, and all that.

My worry about the 32 based movements is that is that large proportions of the movement become service items after the warranty has expired. Expensive times ahead.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by Henrimontgomery

Blasphemy! How can you call them oyster perpetual then?

Rolex should bring back the handwound Oyster. There hasn't been one in the catalog since 1989, if I recall rightly (ref 6694).

[7enderbender]

The older I get the more selective I become about most “innovations”. Maybe that’s just my underlying tendency as a “conservative” in many ways. Maybe it’s just that most innovations these days are for the birds. I look at modern cars and can’t find anything I want to drive. Same with current watches. I buy older models that in many ways reflect peak western civilization. Current Rolex models ain’t that. Big, blingy - and apparently now unreliable.
I still really want a 36mm Explorer and actually like the current iteration. If they came and released it with a previous or otherwise “downgraded” more reliable moment, I’d be all over that. I have no need for more than 48h power reserve (if that).

[Commander C.]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Rolex should bring back the handwound Oyster. There hasn't been one in the catalog since 1989, if I recall rightly (ref 6694).

The problem with hand-wound movements is that it is more difficult to achieve and maintain water resistance.

[CaptT]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Here’s a question… The whole 72-hour… weekend running thing. I mean, wouldn’t you consider it more the opposite? That someone would wear a beater, a nice Seiko or something, DURING the week and put the Rolex on the weekends?


Now I’ve done it, next they will come out with a 120 power reserve movement.

You heard it here first

Interesting perspective and question, Paul.

One way for Rolex to save face is to replace the 32xx movement with something that is a step forward in terms of specifications (and performs to expectations!):

- 100hr power reserve
- minimal to no decline in precision (or is it accuracy 😉) after half way through the power reserve (as seems to be the case with the 32xx, as well as many other movements)
- inclusion of some new material that provides some additional benefit (weight savings, durability, antimagnatism, etc)
- perhaps make this a movement to showcase with clear caseback that highlights a differential in finishing (at least in some of the higher end models)

Retire the 32xx for something that this lands as progress, leading, superlative.

[Harry-57]

Originally Posted by CaptT

- minimal to no decline in precision (or is it accuracy 😉)

It's accuracy.

I want it to accurately tell the time. A watch might lose precisely one hour a day. If it does it repeatedly and predictably it's got good precision.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Do case and movement numbers even match on a Rolex? The watch's "official" serial number (in the eyes of Rolex) is whatever is engraved on the case (around the rehaut or between the lugs). I know there is a number engraved on the movement, but I'm not sure whether it matches the serial, or is merely matched to the serial in some Rolex archive.

Either way, cases and movements are sometimes swapped at service, so it would just be a notation - something about needing a new movement with no additional explanation besides a notation on paperwork.

No, the numbers do not match.

[CaptT]

Originally Posted by harry-57

it's accuracy.

I want it to accurately tell the time. A watch might lose precisely one hour a day. If it does it repeatedly and predictably it's got good precision.

👍

[Mountain]

48 hour power reserve would be fine for me as I wear my watch every day. But, I still feel Rolex have to solve the fundamental problem first. I’m sure they will eventually as they simply have too much to lose if they don’t.

Given the pretty much continuous discussion about this issue on this forum, I would imagine there are some slightly anxious people in Rolex HQ …surely it will only be a matter of time before a brave journalist decides to publish some sort of critical article!

[Chewbacca]

Rolex should sell display models because who cares about setting a Rolex? We went from COSC to that other one and then when it failed we went to ‘who cares. It’s only like 25 seconds every 6hrs. My Kia is for telling time’

This is the only solution and Paul needs to apologize to the forum.

[winst]

Originally Posted by 7enderbender

The older I get the more selective I become about most “innovations”. Maybe that’s just my underlying tendency as a “conservative” in many ways. Maybe it’s just that most innovations these days are for the birds. I look at modern cars and can’t find anything I want to drive. Same with current watches. I buy older models that in many ways reflect peak western civilization. Current Rolex models ain’t that. Big, blingy - and apparently now unreliable.

I still really want a 36mm Explorer and actually like the current iteration. If they came and released it with a previous or otherwise “downgraded” more reliable moment, I’d be all over that. I have no need for more than 48h power reserve (if that).

6426 no date as well - lovely watches. Here’s my Dad’s old one that has just got back from service at local RSCwith new grey dial and hands. Like it so much I found another one on eBay that I’m having restored by them and having a new black dial put on it. So comfortable and quite satisfying to wind in the morning when I get up.

[winst]

Originally Posted by Commander C.

The problem with hand-wound movements is that it is more difficult to achieve and maintain water resistance.

Not sure about that, wore a 6694 for over 15 years in pools, Jacuzzis, The Sea etc etc and never once had a problem. As long as you look after them and maintain them properly you should never have a problem. I would argue, there’s less chance of a mistake with the crown being loose as you are checking it at least every 2 Days.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by Commander C.

The problem with hand-wound movements is that it is more difficult to achieve and maintain water resistance.

Never heard that before. As long as it's a Rolex Oyster with a screwdown crown, it should be plenty water resistant. Rolex sold both manual and automatic Oysters side by side for more than half a century.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by Harry-57

It's accuracy.

I want it to accurately tell the time. A watch might lose precisely one hour a day. If it does it repeatedly and predictably it's got good precision.

Can a watch stay accurate to +2/-2 seconds/day without precision?

If a movement has precision you can move on to adjusting for accuracy.

You require both for your watches.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Never heard that before. As long as it's a Rolex Oyster with a screwdown crown, it should be plenty water resistant. Rolex sold both manual and automatic Oysters side by side for more than half a century.

Constantly screwing that manual crown does wear the seals out more quickly, but, yeah, the screw down crown may mitigate the issue. With non-screw crown watches, like a Speedmaster, it’s a risk. Those watches are fine to swim with when new, but it gets riskier as the number of winds go up.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca

Paul needs to apologize to the forum.

I’m…. I’m… I’m so sorry everyone Especially to you Chewie.

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

I’m…. I’m… I’m so sorry everyone Especially to you Chewie.

Well, OK then. We’re good now.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Constantly screwing that manual crown does wear the seals out more quickly, but, yeah, the screw down crown may mitigate the issue. With non-screw crown watches, like a Speedmaster, it’s a risk. Those watches are fine to swim with when new, but it gets riskier as the number of winds go up.

Yeah, non-screwdown like the Speedy is a different matter of course. It's interesting, though, that the old manual 6694 offered the same 100m WR several decades ago as today's Rolex sports watches (divers excluded).

[Gab27]

Originally Posted by Dirt

I think the criticism of the 48 hour power reserve were a product of a number of factors.
Firstly, the marketing men throughout the industry were pushing their movements forward on the basis of a longer reserve.
Secondly, the populace simply subscribed to it all on the basis that more is better and they don't understand the challenges when less than a handfull of the more mainstream manufacturers were making even longer power reserves because they had the expertise to do it on a limited basis.
Thirdly, the populace didn't stop to consider that their 48's were fit for purpose for 99% of circumstances.
Lastly, people were prepared to own multiple watches and they were stopping during a weekend off the wrist and were getting too lazy to restart their watches, so they came to the conclusion that a 72 would get them over the hump. Hense the interest in watch winders that were originally intended for people with watches that had exotic complications.

If the general population equates a longer power reserve=better, it probably means that Rolex (and other makers) could not ever go back to a 48-52 hour movement? Even if Rolex/others developed a 48 hour movement with major technical enhancements over current 70-72 hour movements, would the general public still see that as a 'downgrade'?

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Gab27

If the general population equates a longer power reserve=better, it probably means that Rolex (and other makers) could not ever go back to a 48-52 hour movement? Even if Rolex/others developed a 48 hour movement with major technical enhancements over current 70-72 hour movements, would the general public still see that as a 'downgrade'?

I have to agree
The horse has bolted on this one and it's got a life of its own.

I do have one watch with a 72 hour power reserve, but it's a manual wind that's worn on special occassions and it can be a bit of a pain to fully wind, so I sort of half wind it for good measure and away I go. The timekeeping seems fine, especially over the short number of hours that it's worn but it's more of a half baked exercise in distributing the lubes.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Constantly screwing that manual crown does wear the seals out more quickly, but, yeah, the screw down crown may mitigate the issue. With non-screw crown watches, like a Speedmaster, it’s a risk. Those watches are fine to swim with when new, but it gets riskier as the number of winds go up.

We talk of the Speedy pro and water resistance but there are three considerations to keep in mind.
Firstly, is that it's claim to fame and intended purpose mostly limits its exposure to water.
Secondly, it's not really recognised as a water sports watch.
Thirdly, according to Omega it's deemed to require more frequent servicing which i think sits at 3-5 years and reflects more traditional service intervals.

All the above limits the risks associated with water resistance and manual wind watches.

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by Dirt

No, the numbers do not match.

It's not that simple.
The movement serial is indeed not the same as the case serial, but they are linked together, and there is a database of this, going back to the 15×× movements.

Every serial number gets checked when a watch comes in, to see if the configuration (dial, bracelet, insert) was changed, the numbers are still the same and if it's stolen or not.

When a case needs replacing the serial gets updated in the database, same for when a movement needs replacing.

[fmc000]

Originally Posted by SearChart

It's not that simple.
The movement serial is indeed not the same as the case serial, but they are linked together, and there is a database of this, going back to the 15×× movements.

Every serial number gets checked when a watch comes in, to see if the configuration (dial, bracelet, insert) was changed, the numbers are still the same and if it's stolen or not.

When a case needs replacing the serial gets updated in the database, same for when a movement needs replacing.

OK, first time I hear this. Learning something new evey day :-)