To those that believe in the 32xx problems, what is your plan/strategy?

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by Dirt

IIRC, the service intervals back in 2005-2006 were recommended to be in the order of 7-8 years which wasn't all that far removed from the generally accepted(at the time) unofficial 5-7 years for Rolex.
My 2403 went out to about 13 years with infrequent but harsh usage before it's first service as accuracy had deteriorated slightly but precision was still first class.

I will say this, which hurts me to my soul as though I like both brands I prefer Rolex. If I wanted a watch today where I trust I'll get away with not servicing for a long time and just wear worry-free, it's the Omega 10 out of 10 times.

Having said that, even with the movement issues, I still overall prefer Rolex watches. It is what it is I guess haha.

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

The residue build-up issue in the 2500 A/B/C is mitigated by new oiling procedures, but the movement itself isn’t upgraded to the newer D model at service time. Omega lowered the beat rate on the C variant, which improved things a bit, but the 3-level escapement of the D variant was the final piece in fixing things.

Interesting. So with the new oiling procedures are the movements now able to run per spec for whatever the original recommended service interval was (I think it was 7 years)?

If Rolex implements some kind of fix that has the movement basically guaranteed to run well for 10 years, then this basically becomes a non-issue for me as servicing a watch every 10 years is perfectly reasonable. TBH if the watch runs a bit out of spec even that wouldn't bother me that much. Losing 5-10 seconds/day, I'd just deal with. Of course some have reported losing as much as 30 seconds/day, that would get annoying and would require servicing.

[Notepad12]

Taking my 2019 DJ into the AD tomorrow because of time being lost on a daily basis

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Swapping in an entirely new movement would be somewhat unprecedented and an admission of a problem, which I don’t see happening. Like Omega has done with the 2500 mvmt I mentioned above, Rolex will likely implement new service routines through oiling (which they’ve already done) and/or update specific parts that extend average the service interval of the movement. Hoping for the latter is probably our best option.

Yes and no. There need not be a disclosure, as such. Remember, Tudor in-house movements are swapped at service (old one removed, refurbished, while another recently refurbished takes its place). Not saying Rolex will do that, but I doubt most will care if that’s what a tech deems “necessary” at service. Sounds like todays movements have more disposable parts than previous generations anyways.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Yes and no. There need not be a disclosure, as such. Remember, Tudor in-house movements are swapped at service (old one removed, refurbished, while another recently refurbished takes its place). Not saying Rolex will do that, but I doubt most will care if that’s what a tech deems “necessary” at service. Sounds like todays movements have more disposable parts than previous generations anyways.

Good point about Tudor. I just don't think Rolex would take that approach. They'd sooner upgrade every part in that movement before admitting the caliber itself was the problem and swapping ALL of them out.

[CFR]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Swapping in an entirely new movement would be somewhat unprecedented and an admission of a problem, which I don’t see happening. Like Omega has done with the 2500 mvmt I mentioned above, Rolex will likely implement new service routines through oiling (which they’ve already done) and/or update specific parts that extend average the service interval of the movement. Hoping for the latter is probably our best option.

Interestingly, Rolex did that with my 3255 movement (DD40 228206). The third time I sent it back to them (all under the original warranty), they said they found "movement irregularities" (the only explanation I was given) and wanted to swap it for a new movement. The former service manager at RSC NYC (she retired about two years ago) asked my permission for the movement swap, and I said, "Yes!" I think it took 2 additional months for the new movement to arrive at the NYC RSC from Switzerland, so it was a really long service interval (and annoying, since that was the 3rd time).

I also have a 3235 movement (DSSD JC 126660) that has been slow since I bought it new from a Rolex boutique, but I'm waiting until close to the 5-year (warranty expiry) mark before sending it in.

Those are the only two watches I've owned with 32xx movements in them, so I'm not super impressed when I compare them with the reliability of my older Rolex stuff.

Regarding Omega, I still have 2 of the original limited Coaxial Deville watches from the 1999 introduction. They both have the 2500A movements in them. I never wear them so haven't bothered to get them serviced, but I understand that Omega would probably replace those with 2500C movements if I ever did send them in. They both run fine -- they never stopped suddenly -- though with one of them, I've always had to hit it with my hand to get it going.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

Interesting. So with the new oiling procedures are the movements now able to run per spec for whatever the original recommended service interval was (I think it was 7 years)?

If Rolex implements some kind of fix that has the movement basically guaranteed to run well for 10 years, then this basically becomes a non-issue for me as servicing a watch every 10 years is perfectly reasonable. TBH if the watch runs a bit out of spec even that wouldn't bother me that much. Losing 5-10 seconds/day, I'd just deal with. Of course some have reported losing as much as 30 seconds/day, that would get annoying and would require servicing.

I don't believe anyone knows what interval the Omega movements reach with the newer oiling procedures. Like here on TRF, there are still recent Omega threads where people say the movement is totally fine!

I had a 2500B for a few years without issue, but I decided to move it on, because I didn't love the idea of keeping a supposed heirloom longterm if it has a potentially faulty movement. That being said, I probably would have kept it if it had a personal connection, like being a gift or whatever.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Good point about Tudor. I just don't think Rolex would take that approach. They'd sooner upgrade every part in that movement before admitting the caliber itself was the problem and swapping ALL of them out.

Again, I think you're overestimating the degree to which most people will care. No need to admit to a problem rather than simply do movement swaps at warranty/routine service. If that's the prescribed service, the majority will just shrug. That's especially true if, for example, the 33xx has a 100hr PR, and is offered under warranty or, for out of warranty watches, at a lower price than the service. People are out nothing, as it's either free or it's a service they'd have likely incurred anyhow.

In truth, it probably costs Rolex less to make a movement from scratch than to disassemble, clean, and reassemble one already made. Was talking Tissot with a salesman who was wearing a PRX and he said "yea, many of the movement components are plastic now and when this needs service, they'll just throw out the old one and put in a new."

Bottom line is that unless people start having to pay for multiple servicings of "bum" movements, ultimately nobody (that doesn't frequent watch forums) is going to care.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by CFR

Interestingly, Rolex did that with my 3255 movement (DD40 228206). The third time I sent it back to them (all under the original warranty), they said they found "movement irregularities" (the only explanation I was given) and wanted to swap it for a new movement. The former service manager at RSC NYC (she retired about two years ago) asked my permission for the movement swap, and I said, "Yes!" I think it took 2 additional months for the new movement to arrive at the NYC RSC from Switzerland, so it was a really long service interval (and annoying, since that was the 3rd time).

I also have a 3235 movement (DSSD JC 126660) that has been slow since I bought it new from a Rolex boutique, but I'm waiting until close to the 5-year (warranty expiry) mark before sending it in.

Those are the only two watches I've owned with 32xx movements in them, so I'm not super impressed when I compare them with the reliability of my older Rolex stuff.

Regarding Omega, I still have 2 of the original limited Coaxial Deville watches from the 1999 introduction. They both have the 2500A movements in them. I never wear them so haven't bothered to get them serviced, but I understand that Omega would probably replace those with 2500C movements if I ever did send them in. They both run fine -- they never stopped suddenly -- though with one of them, I've always had to hit it with my hand to get it going.

Ah, yes, I meant I doubt they'd replace the Rolex movements with a newer caliber.

The rare 2500A movement was problematic enough that there have been reports that it gets replaced with a newer revision of the 2500. If true, I believe the watch has to be sent to Switzerland for the procedure. At least as of 12/2021, the 2500B does not get upgraded to a newer revision.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Again, I think you're overestimating the degree to which most people will care. No need to admit to a problem rather than simply do movement swaps at warranty/routine service. If that's the prescribed service, the majority will just shrug. That's especially true if, for example, the 33xx has a 100hr PR, and is offered under warranty or, for out of warranty watches, at a lower price than the service. People are out nothing, as it's either free or it's a service they'd have likely incurred anyhow.

In truth, it probably costs Rolex less to make a movement from scratch than to disassemble, clean, and reassemble one already made. Was talking Tissot with a salesman who was wearing a PRX and he said "yea, many of the movement components are plastic now and when this needs service, they'll just throw out the old one and put in a new."

Bottom line is that unless people start having to pay for multiple servicings of "bum" movements, ultimately nobody (that doesn't frequent watch forums) is going to care.

The problem is that it would set a new precedent for Rolex. They would have to admit that the 32xx is faulty enough to replace with an entirely different movement, and then people would start expecting movement upgrades in the future for newer calibers, even if only little things aren't perfect. It's a slippery slope, and I think they'd sooner deny issues with the 32xx until the end and attempt to fix things incrementally, rather than upgrading millions of them to a new caliber at service time.

The 30xx wasn't exactly a perfect movement, and it had a relatively short run, but Rolex wasn't giving everyone 31xx upgrades.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

The problem is that it would set a new precedent for Rolex. They would have to admit that the 32xx is faulty enough to replace with an entirely different movement, and then people would start expecting movement upgrades in the future for newer calibers, even if only little things aren't perfect. It's a slippery slope, and I think they'd sooner deny issues with the 32xx until the end and attempt to fix things incrementally, rather than upgrading millions of them to a new caliber at service time.

The 30xx wasn't exactly a perfect movement, and it had a relatively short run, but Rolex wasn't giving everyone 31xx upgrades.

Again, only sets a new precedent if the majority give it a second thought/know that it's being done at wide scale. If everyone just thinks "oh, movement was faulty/so damaged that easier to replace, ok" then it will be a non-event.

If I remember right, the difference with the 30xx is that it was "just not as good or easy to maintain as it could be" rather than suffering from a fundamental design flaws (but I could be way off). Again, Rolex may well figure out a fix for the 32xx and implement it. Perhaps the 32xx w/fix is identical to an eventual 33xx (in which case I expect Rolex to choose repair vs replace based on cost).

[dannyp]

Random question: I've abandoned the original thread on this for reasons cited already, but seem to recall something about temperature being a factor?

What was that again, and how did it come into play?

[Tridor]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Again, only sets a new precedent if the majority give it a second thought/know that it's being done at wide scale. If everyone just thinks "oh, movement was faulty/so damaged that easier to replace, ok" then it will be a non-event.

If I remember right, the difference with the 30xx is that it was "just not as good or easy to maintain as it could be" rather than suffering from a fundamental design flaws (but I could be way off). Again, Rolex may well figure out a fix for the 32xx and implement it. Perhaps the 32xx w/fix is identical to an eventual 33xx (in which case I expect Rolex to choose repair vs replace based on cost).

That is absolutely correct as to the 30xx. I have a 3055 and it has worked flawlessly since 1986.

[Kenny G]

Originally Posted by Kenny G

These threads are getting completely out of hand.

As a Rolex aficionado, I hope all of our movements aren’t without issue…31xx, 32xx, or the future 33xx.

If you experience otherwise, and it cannot be sorted out by Rolex (highly unlikely without some other form of recourse)…..unload it.

I don’t own anything other than 31xx, but i wouldn’t hesitate to get into a 32xx.

Originally Posted by Devildog

Here's a different take.

The fact that Rolex can't seem to fix this (as confirmed by our resident RSC Watchmaker) its whats "out of hand".

Its incredibly easy to be as pragmatic as your post dictates when you have zero direct experience of the issue.

For many, for whom a Rolex watch is a significant purchase, it becomes an emotional decision, not just a financial one and therefore it understandably becomes a greater concern and a more emotive subject.

There is no doubt that Rolex have an issue with the 32xx. It doesn't affect every movement but for those it does its significant.

Returning to RSC does not always result in a fix. Its easy to say "...unload it" Its a lot harder for many to simply do that.

I unloaded mine because the fix didn't work. Absolutely the last thing i wanted to do but I lost confidence in Rolex's ability to fix it. With good reason - there is no permanent fix yet.

I bought a 2022 CHNR (TT). Hoping that I'll be lucky this time, but accepting that if I'm not it will go for a fix and then I'll see what happens. Worst case I'm slightly out of pocket. I also have a 3135 and a 4130 both tried and tested.

Bought my first full PM recently. Would I have bought a full pm with a 32xx?

No way. Not a chance would I make such a significant purchase in the hope that my watch would be fine.

That's the difference real life experience makes.

I fully understand the frustration and believe me I’m not being unsympathetic. My point was missed. My point is that childish arguments between adult members on this topic is absolutely ridiculous. Period.

This isn’t “life experience” we’re talking about..it’s experience with a watch. Big difference. I fully understand what catastrophic engine failure is in a high-end car, even though I’ve never experienced it first hand. It’s the same thing here.

Sure, I have no reason to be emotionally charged about it….but these are watches, and just like cars and anything else mechanical, things go wrong from time-to-time and major issues are usually in the minority of cases and will eventually get sorted out. Those that lose their mind about stuff like this should re-evaluate if taking the risk of buying things like this is worth it to them.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Again, only sets a new precedent if the majority give it a second thought/know that it's being done at wide scale. If everyone just thinks "oh, movement was faulty/so damaged that easier to replace, ok" then it will be a non-event.

If I remember right, the difference with the 30xx is that it was "just not as good or easy to maintain as it could be" rather than suffering from a fundamental design flaws (but I could be way off). Again, Rolex may well figure out a fix for the 32xx and implement it. Perhaps the 32xx w/fix is identical to an eventual 33xx (in which case I expect Rolex to choose repair vs replace based on cost).

We are all speculating of course, but Rolex have always been super strict about only allowing combinations that were originally offered from the factory. If a jubilee bracelet fits your case but the watch only came with an oyster, RSC won't sell it it you. If you have a PM Daytona and wish to install a dial only offered in the Steel models, sorry, can't do it. So it's really hard to imagine a different caliber number - especially one with different specs like a longer PR - being swapped in. This is fingernails on the chalkboard to "The Rolex Way." It's basically creating a "factory frankenwatch."

What I am hoping for is some kind of revised part(s) or procedures which can interop with a 32xx. This is the only way I'd feel confident that my watches can benefit from the development. If two years from now a new GMT and Sub come out with a 33xx, I think that will be VERY bad news for those of us struggling with our watches. Rolex could very easily deny putting that in our watches, the same way they'd never agree to put a 3285 into a 16710.

[Mountain]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

We are all speculating of course, but Rolex have always been super strict about only allowing combinations that were originally offered from the factory. If a jubilee bracelet fits your case but the watch only came with an oyster, RSC won't sell it it you. If you have a PM Daytona and wish to install a dial only offered in the Steel models, sorry, can't do it. So it's really hard to imagine a different caliber number - especially one with different specs like a longer PR - being swapped in. This is fingernails on the chalkboard to "The Rolex Way." It's basically creating a "factory frankenwatch."

What I am hoping for is some kind of revised part(s) or procedures which can interop with a 32xx. This is the only way I'd feel confident that my watches can benefit from the development. If two years from now a new GMT and Sub come out with a 33xx, I think that will be VERY bad news for those of us struggling with our watches. Rolex could very easily deny putting that in our watches, the same way they'd never agree to put a 3285 into a 16710.

That maybe so, however, they could certainly incorporate some new or redesigned parts within the existing 32xx movements thereby achieving the same end result, ie better reliability.

[DG123]

32XX movement watches were first introduced which year ?

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Tridor

That is absolutely correct as to the 30xx. I have a 3055 and it has worked flawlessly since 1986.

Of course. I was simply implying that Rolex has always made improvements from generation to generation (3135 upgraded the 3035's glued hairspring that occasionally failed,) and opening the door to upgrading to new movement calibers would be a slippery slope. It would be costly and a huge admission of guilt. They'll just keep replacing 32xx parts and sending it back. Hopefully they solve the right part combination, so owners don't have to repeatedly send in their watches like we've seen around here a bit.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by dg123

32xx movement watches were first introduced which year ?

2015: 3235, 3255
2016: -
2017: -
2018: 3285
2019: -
2020: 3230

[TheVTCGuy]

Rolex did not become the number one branded watch in the world and arguably the most recognized name for quality by manufacturing crappy products. Is there some issue with the 32 movement? I respect Bas’ knowledge on the subject and accept that there very may well be. It didn’t stop me from buying my grail last week nor diminish my faith in the company that a fix or adjustment or whatever will solve said issue, if it already hasn’t been applied to the newest watches.

Bottom line: I am not concerned at all

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

We are all speculating of course, but Rolex have always been super strict about only allowing combinations that were originally offered from the factory. If a jubilee bracelet fits your case but the watch only came with an oyster, RSC won't sell it it you. If you have a PM Daytona and wish to install a dial only offered in the Steel models, sorry, can't do it. So it's really hard to imagine a different caliber number - especially one with different specs like a longer PR - being swapped in. This is fingernails on the chalkboard to "The Rolex Way." It's basically creating a "factory frankenwatch."

What I am hoping for is some kind of revised part(s) or procedures which can interop with a 32xx. This is the only way I'd feel confident that my watches can benefit from the development. If two years from now a new GMT and Sub come out with a 33xx, I think that will be VERY bad news for those of us struggling with our watches. Rolex could very easily deny putting that in our watches, the same way they'd never agree to put a 3285 into a 16710.

There's one big difference between this and the scenario you mentioned in the first paragraph: This is still a Rolex-made rule, not a customer request. But you have a good point, and it would mostly work if nothing else about the watch were changing. Sort of like that 16710 you mention being available first with a 3185, then (briefly) a 3186 but no change in reference.

As to your second point, the one thing I would imagine gets Rolex to consider movement swaps if no fix is implemented is the cost of continued maintenance. Watches come back with a two-year service warranty, and most fall out of spec within two years. So it'll keep going back, under the service warranty, with Rolex incurring costs (not sure if service warranty extended if, say, after a year it fails again - will it start over?).

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Rolex did not become the number one branded watch in the world and arguably the most recognized name for quality by manufacturing crappy products...

I think that's where the concern lies. In some ways, Rolex has echoed Land Rover in that, 40+ years ago, they were both highly respected, adventurer's tools, but now they're primarily made for luxurious adventures at the mall. The difference is that, while Land Rovers became overly complicated and reliability fell off a cliff, Rolex has thankfully maintained the durability that they've long been known for.

Hopefully, the 32xx is an anomaly, rather than a bellwether for the direction of the company. Omega got a 15 year head start and then drug along both Rolex and Grand Seiko into complicated escapement wars, but here's to hoping they solve it.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

I think that's where the concern lies. In some ways, Rolex has echoed Land Rover in that, 40+ years ago, they were both highly respected, adventurer's tools, but now they're primarily made for luxurious adventures at the mall. The difference is that, while Land Rovers became overly complicated and reliability fell off a cliff, Rolex has thankfully maintained the durability that they've long been known for.

Hopefully, the 32xx is an anomaly, rather than a bellwether for the direction of the company. Omega got a 15 year head start and then drug along both Rolex and Grand Seiko into complicated escapement wars, but here's to hoping they solve it.

I think the main difference is that the actual product changes that have aided Rolex's brand evolution have been mostly visual: more polish, additional size options, more PM/jeweled pieces, etc. The inner workings didn't require any change for the purpose of adapting to the luxury market. Not the case with Land Rover.

[Calatrava r]

https://quillandpad.com/2019/11/19/w...ich-is-better/


This a good article which many here may have seen describing the 32xx movement, how it works and how it compares to the predecessor. Of course, the issues discussed here were unknown when this was written, but good info anyway.

[msum]

Originally Posted by dannyp

There's one big difference between this and the scenario you mentioned in the first paragraph: This is still a Rolex-made rule, not a customer request. But you have a good point, and it would mostly work if nothing else about the watch were changing. Sort of like that 16710 you mention being available first with a 3185, then (briefly) a 3186 but no change in reference.

As to your second point, the one thing I would imagine gets Rolex to consider movement swaps if no fix is implemented is the cost of continued maintenance. Watches come back with a two-year service warranty, and most fall out of spec within two years. So it'll keep going back, under the service warranty, with Rolex incurring costs (not sure if service warranty extended if, say, after a year it fails again - will it start over?).

Can anyone corroborate that the 2 year warranty following a service will be helpful here, if there is indeed an issue with a propensity for recurrence within a short period of time? Can they turn around and say that the issue is not covered by warranty because it is a mere matter of regulating the watch again, which is something that “just happens” rather than being a manufacturing or previous servicing issue? Assuming there is an issue, touch a scenario would be problematic for those wanting to keep their watch running with very good timekeeping and not excessive servicing costs beyond about 7 years.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by dannyp

I think the main difference is that the actual product changes that have aided Rolex's brand evolution have been mostly visual: more polish, additional size options, more PM/jeweled pieces, etc. The inner workings didn't require any change for the purpose of adapting to the luxury market. Not the case with Land Rover.

Yeah, that's what I mean. Hopefully the inner workings aren't put on the back-burner in the future, like with Range Rover, since more and more users claim to not even be so concerned with even setting their watches at all, and/or they don't wear their watches enough to even notice their movements being significantly out of spec.

[DG123]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

I respect Bas’ knowledge on the subject

Who is Bas ?

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

We are all speculating of course, but Rolex have always been super strict about only allowing combinations that were originally offered from the factory. If a jubilee bracelet fits your case but the watch only came with an oyster, RSC won't sell it it you. If you have a PM Daytona and wish to install a dial only offered in the Steel models, sorry, can't do it. So it's really hard to imagine a different caliber number - especially one with different specs like a longer PR - being swapped in. This is fingernails on the chalkboard to "The Rolex Way." It's basically creating a "factory frankenwatch."

What I am hoping for is some kind of revised part(s) or procedures which can interop with a 32xx. This is the only way I'd feel confident that my watches can benefit from the development. If two years from now a new GMT and Sub come out with a 33xx, I think that will be VERY bad news for those of us struggling with our watches. Rolex could very easily deny putting that in our watches, the same way they'd never agree to put a 3285 into a 16710.

Agreed
Just for the record, the 32xx movements are 0.5mm thinner than the 31xx but diameter remains the same IIRC.

As to the swap of a 32xx movement into a 5 digit case. I'm not sure they would pursue that course of action even though it would physically fit with a spacer or even two
It may even be better with an internally revised 5 digit Midcase

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by DG123

Who is Bas ?

He is a Rolex trained watchmaker who has graciously shared his insights on a number of things when he has the chance.
If you go across to the watchmaking tech sub-forum you will get a better feel for who he is and his valuable contribution to the forum.
He is known as Searchart

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by msum

Can anyone corroborate that the 2 year warranty following a service will be helpful here, if there is indeed an issue with a propensity for recurrence within a short period of time? Can they turn around and say that the issue is not covered by warranty because it is a mere matter of regulating the watch again, which is something that “just happens” rather than being a manufacturing or previous servicing issue? Assuming there is an issue, touch a scenario would be problematic for those wanting to keep their watch running with very good timekeeping and not excessive servicing costs beyond about 7 years.

I think it'll depend on whether there's just time loss or if amplitudes dip. One is a matter of regulation, the other of a larger issue.