32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[saxo3]

32xx amplitudes of 300 degrees?

I think we do NOT see 32xx amplitude values of 300 degrees because these movements are regulated to fall into -2/+2 sec/day regime, which corresponds to the 5-position average rate 'X'.

With the specific 32xx isochronism behavior, as described in my post #3647 (page 122), one would need to go to higher X rate values to measure higher amplitudes in horizontal and vertical positions.

I have seen exactly this effect for my 3235 watch, which was regulated by Rolex from X = +4 s/d to X = +1 s/d.

After regulation all high amplitudes had decreased by about 10 degrees, which should not be the case for 'good' isochronism.

I propose an interesting experiment to Bas and/or all other RSC watchmakers:

Step 1: Take a serviced 32xx movement, regulate it X = +5 s/d (or a bit higher) and measure rates, beat errors, and amplitudes with your timegrapher.

I expect that amplitudes will be above 290 degrees (DU, DD) and above 250 degrees (9U, 6U, 3U).

Step 2: Regulate the same caliber to X = +1 s/d and compare the differences.

I expect that all amplitudes will be lower.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by saxo3

I propose an interesting experiment to Bas and/or all other RSC watchmakers:

Step 1: Take a serviced 32xx movement, regulate it X = +5 s/d (or a bit higher) and measure rates, beat errors, and amplitudes with your timegrapher.

I expect that amplitudes will be above 290 degrees (DU, DD) and above 250 degrees (9U, 6U, 3U).

Step 2: Regulate the same caliber to X = +1 s/d and compare the differences.

I expect that all amplitudes will be lower.

What is the theory behind this? I have never read that regulation should impact amplitude. Regulating the watch occurs by increasing/decreasing the moment of inertia in the balance wheel. But the amplitude should come from the strength of the impulse that the pallet fork delivers, and that "kick" comes from the escape wheel which gets its power from the mainspring through the gear train.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

What is the theory behind this? I have never read that regulation should impact amplitude.

I have no theory.

It is the result of my 5-position timegrapher measurements, which I did before/after the RSC regulation. It fits well with the isochronism data shown in post #3647.

My point for 32xx movements is simple: the higher the Xrates the higher the Xampitudes; of course within certain limits.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by saxo3

I have no theory.

It is the result of my 5-position timegrapher measurements, which I did before/after the RSC regulation. It fits well with the isochronism data shown in post #3647.

My point for 32xx movements is simple: the higher the Xrates the higher the Xampitudes; of course within certain limits.

As a comparison perhaps it could also be checked against a 31xx movement but I also don't think amplitude should be influenced by pursuing tighter accuracy tolerance in a properly functioning movement.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by saxo3

I have no theory.

It is the result of my 5-position timegrapher measurements, which I did before/after the RSC regulation. It fits well with the isochronism data shown in post #3647.

My point for 32xx movements is simple: the higher the Xrates the higher the Xampitudes; of course within certain limits.

I see. #3647 is interesting for sure, and I can see how continuing the trend lines alone might lead to an expected (+5, 290) pairing. But in reality this dataset maxes out at 245 degrees. A better predictor might be to include data you have from a high amplitude watch where I would expect these relationships to stop being linear.

Isochronism aside, I don't believe amplitude will continue to increase beyond its full-wind peak based on a simple regulation. Consider the Sea Dweller data you have in that graph. We drop from 245 degrees to 160 degrees and the timing drops about 5 s/d. But surely we would not expect the amplitude to go from 245 up to 330 just by regulating up 5 s/d.

Or to put it another way... I think of isochronism as the movement's ability to resist rate changes as the amplitude drops from its full-wind, full-strength levels. But this does not imply rate is the primary input driving the amplitude.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

I see. 3647 is interesting for sure, and I can see how continuing the trend lines alone might lead to an expected (+5, 290) pairing. But in reality this dataset maxes out at 245 degrees. A better predictor might be to include data you have from a high amplitude watch where I would expect these relationships to stop being linear.

I think you are close but did a wrong assumption: we must NOT extrapolate the trendline in this graph.
I extended the graph shown in #3647 by adding the following timegrapher data sets:

(1) NEW: Before Regulation (highest amplitudes), no PR measurements
(2) NEW: After Regulation (reduced amplitudes), no PR measurements
(3) Before Repair (reduced vertical amplitudes), PR measurements
(4) NEW: After Repair (increased all amplitudes), PR measurements

The isochronism fit for (1) would probably look as I have sketched in the graph below (dotted black line). But I did not measure the PR before/after the regulation, therefore only one data point for (1) and (2).

The dotted vertical (green) line at Xrate = 0 s/d indicates perfect isochronism, that means the average amplitude decreases but the average rate remains constant.

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Isochronism aside, I don't believe amplitude will continue to increase beyond its full-wind peak based on a simple regulation. Consider the Sea Dweller data you have in that graph. We drop from 245 degrees to 160 degrees and the timing drops about 5 s/d. But surely we would not expect the amplitude to go from 245 up to 330 just by regulating up 5 s/d.

Agreed, explained above, one must NOT extrapolate the fit (trendline) of data set (3)

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Or to put it another way... I think of isochronism as the movement's ability to resist rate changes as the amplitude drops from its full-wind, full-strength levels. But this does not imply rate is the primary input driving the amplitude.

Agreed, isochronism means that the rate remains stable with changing (decreasing) amplitudes. Sure, that rate is not the primary input increasing the amplitude, but I say: if a watchmaker trims the 32xx movement to obtain highest amplitudes, without looking at the rates, then high rates will be the result. That is the aim of my proposed experiment.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by saxo3

I think you are close but did a wrong assumption: we must NOT extrapolate the trendline in this graph.
I extended the graph shown in #3647 by adding the following timegrapher data sets:

(1) NEW: Before Regulation (highest amplitudes), no PR measurements
(2) NEW: After Regulation (reduced amplitudes), no PR measurements
(3) Before Repair (reduced vertical amplitudes), PR measurements
(4) NEW: After Repair (increased all amplitudes), PR measurements

The isochronism fit for (1) would probably look as I have sketched in the graph below (dotted black line). But I did not measure the PR before/after the regulation, therefore only one data point for (1) and (2).

The dotted vertical (green) line at Xrate = 0 s/d indicates perfect isochronism, that means the average amplitude decreases but the average rate remains constant.




Agreed, explained above, one must NOT extrapolate the fit (trendline) of data set (3)

Agreed, isochronism means that the rate remains stable with changing (decreasing) amplitudes. Sure, that rate is not the primary input increasing the amplitude, but I say: if a watchmaker trims the 32xx movement to obtain highest amplitudes, without looking at the rates, then high rates will be the result. That is the aim of my proposed experiment.

Appreciate the extra info. To be clear, I was not saying that we should extrapolate (for the reason I mentioned - I don't believe it will be linear in the positive direction) but I was saying that is what I believed was leading you to come up with those projected numbers. If not, my mistake.

I think I better understand what you are proposing, but I'm not sure it is possible in practice. I.e. I'm not aware of an "amplitude trim" that a watchmaker has at their disposal, at least not in this environment. Maybe Bas can add some insight here. My understanding was that mass produced movements really aren't "adjusted" by hand, they are simply assembled, lubed and regulated. The adjustment (e.g. balance wheel poising, hairspring shaping, etc) is happening by some machine in the manufacturing process and is baked into the combination of parts that a particular watchmaker sits down with to assemble. So the only real "knob" the watchmaker has to turn is the regulation (again, this is in the context of a mass produced movement with readily available parts). If I have that wrong I'd love to hear more about what other tuning occurs in a service center environment.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Appreciate the extra info.

For clarification, I do not speak about mass produced movements and their regulation by some machines.

For the regulation of my Sea-Dweller I had asked RSC to reduce from X = 4.3 s/d to X = 1 s/d or close to this value.

My watch was very carefully regulated, and the watchmaker achieved X = 1.1 s/d, an excellent result, look at the numbers.

I was happy but astonished that this came along with lower amplitudes, as shown above.

This 3235 movement never reached again the 289-292 degrees for DU and DD.

Anyhow, thanks for the interesting discussion.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

I think I better understand what you are proposing, but I'm not sure it is possible in practice. I.e. I'm not aware of an "amplitude trim" that a watchmaker has at their disposal, at least not in this environment.

I get this point. Just in case one cannot 'trim' (maybe the wrong wording) to high amplitudes then we go the opposite way:

The watchmaker regulates the 32xx movement to a high average rate, e.g., X = 5 or 6 s/d, and then we see what amplitudes we obtain.

I think one would reach 290+ degrees in DU and/or DD.

In a second step, the same watch gets regulated to a lower average rate, e.g., X = 1 s/d, and then the 32xx amplitudes would be lower.

In a third step, one could regulate the caliber to a negative Xrate of -5 s/d and see if amplitudes further decrease.

This experiment is worth to be done, in a quantitative way.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by saxo3

I get this point. Just in case one cannot 'trim' (maybe the wrong wording) to high amplitudes then we go the opposite way:

The watchmaker regulates the 32xx movement to a high average rate, e.g., X = 5 or 6 s/d, and then we see what amplitudes we obtain.

I think one would reach 290+ degrees in DU and/or DD.

In a second step, the same watch gets regulated to a lower average rate, e.g., X = 1 s/d, and then the 32xx amplitudes would be lower.

In a third step, one could regulate the caliber to a negative Xrate of -5 s/d and see if amplitudes further decrease.

This experiment is worth to be done, in a quantitative way.

It would be interesting.
Perhaps one of our esteemed watchmakers could share a bit of anecdotal evidence gained through their experience, just for expediency.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by saxo3

For clarification, I do not speak about mass produced movements and their regulation by some machines.

For the regulation of my Sea-Dweller I had asked RSC to reduce from X = 4.3 s/d to X = 1 s/d or close to this value.

My watch was very carefully regulated, and the watchmaker achieved X = 1.1 s/d, an excellent result, look at the numbers.

I was happy but astonished that this came along with lower amplitudes, as shown above.

This 3235 movement never reached again the 289-292 degrees for DU and DD.

Anyhow, thanks for the interesting discussion.

Agreed, I find this interesting as well. Question: on this Sea Dweller service do you know if it was limited to a regulation only, or did they in any way disassemble/lube/reassemble the movement? If any "servicing" of the movement takes place then I would say it needs to be treated as a completely separate dataset. But if it was simply a matter of turning the microstellas then yes, I agree, this seems to be a noteworthy observation.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Agreed, I find this interesting as well. Question: on this Sea Dweller service do you know if it was limited to a regulation only, or did they in any way disassemble/lube/reassemble the movement? If any "servicing" of the movement takes place then I would say it needs to be treated as a completely separate dataset. But if it was simply a matter of turning the microstellas then yes, I agree, this seems to be a noteworthy observation.

Of course I know, it was only a 3235 movement REGULATION and nothing else was touched. It was not any servicing.





... seems to be a noteworthy observation?

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by saxo3

... seems to be a noteworthy observation?

ss1.jpg


Though noteworthy, I think your observation is still orthogonal to the chronic issue. If anything, it lends support to the notion that this caliber is "designed" to run at lower amplitudes than we have seen with previous generations of Rolex calibers. I.e. in order to achieve a +0 s/d rate, amplitude will come in the 255-265 range, versus, say, 285-295 of a 31xx. And the caveat of course is this is a sample size of 1, so we shouldn't get too confident.

That said, if a lower-than-normal amplitude were the only oddity we'd not be having this conversation. None of us really care whether our watches achieve 255 or 285, right? The problem is when the 255 becomes 235 and the 235 becomes 195 and so on. Or to put it another way, there's no reason to believe that a watch regulated to achieve 290 amplitude would somehow be immune to the long-term decay we see, it might just take a few months longer to hit a low enough amplitude where the timekeeping is completely gone.

So what I propose is that you buy 20 GMTs, regulate 10 of them to +5s/d and 10 of them to +0s/d. Let's track that over the next 2 years and THEN we'll really have some answers

[Vince_76]

I see the thread in the general forum. Any update here?

For some context, my DJ was running -4sec/day about 18 months ago. I tracked it again recently and it’s well within 2spd

I’m nervous about there being no fix before my warranty expires (June 2025), as the watch holds sentimental value to me

[Tritto]

First mainstream watch media mention of this issue that I recall seeing is in a worn and wound article on the new Explorer 40mm today.

https://wornandwound.com/the-rolex-e...new-40mm-case/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Andad]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Attachment 1358983


Though noteworthy, I think your observation is still orthogonal to the chronic issue. If anything, it lends support to the notion that this caliber is "designed" to run at lower amplitudes than we have seen with previous generations of Rolex calibers. I.e. in order to achieve a +0 s/d rate, amplitude will come in the 255-265 range, versus, say, 285-295 of a 31xx. And the caveat of course is this is a sample size of 1, so we shouldn't get too confident.

That said, if a lower-than-normal amplitude were the only oddity we'd not be having this conversation. None of us really care whether our watches achieve 255 or 285, right? The problem is when the 255 becomes 235 and the 235 becomes 195 and so on. Or to put it another way, there's no reason to believe that a watch regulated to achieve 290 amplitude would somehow be immune to the long-term decay we see, it might just take a few months longer to hit a low enough amplitude where the timekeeping is completely gone.

So what I propose is that you buy 20 GMTs, regulate 10 of them to +5s/d and 10 of them to +0s/d. Let's track that over the next 2 years and THEN we'll really have some answers

But will they all run for two years?

[Andad]

Originally Posted by saxo3

For clarification, I do not speak about mass produced movements and their regulation by some machines.

For the regulation of my Sea-Dweller I had asked RSC to reduce from X = 4.3 s/d to X = 1 s/d or close to this value.

My watch was very carefully regulated, and the watchmaker achieved X = 1.1 s/d, an excellent result, look at the numbers.

I was happy but astonished that this came along with lower amplitudes, as shown above.

This 3235 movement never reached again the 289-292 degrees for DU and DD.

Anyhow, thanks for the interesting discussion.

Why are you surprised?

This thread is about the issue with 32** movements slowing down with age and this movement has done exactly this.

It came back from the adjustment at about 95% of its previous amplitude.

I am not surprised.

A few of these movements have shown this issue from new.

[SearChart]

Increasing the average rate per day is not going to have an effect on amplitude.

I'm not entirely free to do experiments at work as I please, but I'm willing to participate and do a couple of 32×× over the months and document the effect of regulation on amplitude. It won't be enough quantity to have any meaningful result for your experiment proposal.

[SearChart]

We don't see 300 degrees because it's not designed to run at those amplitudes.
The entire point of the chronergy escapement is more efficiency and less friction, very high amplitudes would be counterproductive since it's just a waste of energy.
For a 0hr test DU DD amplitudes are optimal when between 260-280, and vertical position in the 230-40 range.

Pretty much all 32×× that run like this will have good steady average rates both at 0hrs and 24hrs and will reach the minimum amplitude tolerance of 200 degrees easily. So I see no point in aiming for 300 degrees, there is no benefit to that.

The only thing I want to see is that they keep running at ideal amplitudes for 8-10 years. Simple regulation isn't going to solve that problem.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Vince_76

I see the thread in the general forum. Any update here?

For some context, my DJ was running -4sec/day about 18 months ago. I tracked it again recently and it’s well within 2spd

I’m nervous about there being no fix before my warranty expires (June 2025), as the watch holds sentimental value to me

Just stick with it and don't be overly concerned.
Service when you feel the need and hopefully Rolex will be able to get on top of the issue over the long term.
It's just part and parcel of your journey with it

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by SearChart

We don't see 300 degrees because it's not designed to run at those amplitudes.
- Yes, I have seen and measured that for non-Rolex watch calibers (BP 1315) with a power reserve of 120 hours. The amplitudes at t = 0 are high, stay stable and remain above 200 degrees until 82 hours. This certainly is more efficient than starting with very anplitudes.
The entire point of the chronergy escapement is more efficiency and less friction, very high amplitudes would be counterproductive since it's just a waste of energy.
- Sure.
For a 0hr test DU DD amplitudes are optimal when between 260-280, and vertical position in the 230-40 range.
- Yes.
Pretty much all 32×× that run like this will have good steady average rates both at 0hrs and 24hrs and will reach the minimum amplitude tolerance of 200 degrees easily. So I see no point in aiming for 300 degrees, there is no benefit to that.
- Sure.
The only thing I want to see is that they keep running at ideal amplitudes for 8-10 years. Simple regulation isn't going to solve that problem.
- 8-10 years w/o issues would be perfect. No doubt at all that a caliber regulation does not cure any intrinsic 32xx problem.

Originally Posted by SearChart

I'm not entirely free to do experiments at work as I please, but I'm willing to participate and do a couple of 32×× over the months and document the effect of regulation on amplitude. It won't be enough quantity to have any meaningful result for your experiment proposal.
- That is great and very much appreciated.

Originally Posted by SearChart

Increasing the average rate per day is not going to have an effect on amplitude.
- That is the objective of my proposed experiment.
- I think it will have an effect on amplitude if the differences between the average rates are not too small.
- Otherwise, you would need to note the sigma values (rates, amplitudes) for all 5 positions.

Thanks for both answers, Bas, much appreciated.

[swexlin]

Received my Oct 2021 DSSD back from RSC NY this morning. Of course, receipt only said "check movement". Mailed it Feb6, received today Apr7, so two months.

Gave it a wind, put it on the Weishi, and saw +2/+3, amplitude 270ish.

When I sent it off, it was running 8-15 spd slow per day. Will report back in a couple day.

[doboy007]

Originally Posted by swexlin

Received my Oct 2021 DSSD back from RSC NY this morning. Of course, receipt only said "check movement". Mailed it Feb6, received today Apr7, so two months.

Gave it a wind, put it on the Weishi, and saw +2/+3, amplitude 270ish.

When I sent it off, it was running 8-15 spd slow per day. Will report back in a couple day.

So was it 8-15s slow down per day even when wearing it? I'm just wondering if we see the slow down even when the watch is actively worn and close to 100% reserve. Thanks.

[swexlin]

Originally Posted by doboy007

So was it 8-15s slow down per day even when wearing it? I'm just wondering if we see the slow down even when the watch is actively worn and close to 100% reserve. Thanks.

Yes, during normal wear.

24 update: its +2 from when I set yesterday. So within spec.

[doboy007]

Originally Posted by swexlin

Yes, during normal wear.

24 update: its +2 from when I set yesterday. So within spec.

Got it, thanks. Now I know what to watch out for.

[Cassian739]

I've been trying to get a balanced view on the 32xx low-amplitude movement issues and their prevalence among Rolex owners. Here's my perspective, and I understand that many may have different opinions, which I respect:

In the poll, only 1,218 members (0.4% of the +284,000 members) participated, with 284 reporting the low amplitude issue and timekeeping >5s/d. This represents a mere 0.1% of the total forum membership. Considering that the majority of modern Rolex watches since 2015 have the 32xx movement, amounting to millions of watches worldwide, I expected more dialogue on the issue. I acknowledge that many forum members may not be active anymore, may not own watches with the 32xx movement, or may own newer watches without issues. Additionally, not all members are watch enthusiasts who closely track accuracy.

Regarding comments from certified Rolex technicians, their expertise and dedication to their craft are admirable. However, it's important to remember that their experiences primarily involve working on watches with problems daily, which may not provide a complete picture of the average Rolex watch owner's experience. With millions of 32xx movements in circulation, the vast majority of which have not gone into service for amplitude issues, it's important to take this into account when considering their perspectives. Again, many people aren't checking their watches for accuracy either, but I have to assume more people would notice if their watch is running >30s/d.

Considering these factors, the data suggest that the 32xx issue is not as widespread as some comments in this forum indicate. We should be cautious about overgeneralizing the experiences of a relatively small group of watch owners.

That said, this doesn't mean the issue should be dismissed. Sharing our experiences and helping each other is always valuable.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by Cassian739

I've been trying to get a balanced view on the 32xx low-amplitude movement issues and their prevalence among Rolex owners. Here's my perspective, and I understand that many may have different opinions, which I respect:

In the poll, only 1,218 members (0.4% of the +284,000 members) participated, with 284 reporting the low amplitude issue and timekeeping >5s/d. This represents a mere 0.1% of the total forum membership. Considering that the majority of modern Rolex watches since 2015 have the 32xx movement, amounting to millions of watches worldwide, I expected more dialogue on the issue. I acknowledge that many forum members may not be active anymore, may not own watches with the 32xx movement, or may own newer watches without issues. Additionally, not all members are watch enthusiasts who closely track accuracy.

Regarding comments from certified Rolex technicians, their expertise and dedication to their craft are admirable. However, it's important to remember that their experiences primarily involve working on watches with problems daily, which may not provide a complete picture of the average Rolex watch owner's experience. With millions of 32xx movements in circulation, most of which have likely not gone into service, it's important to take this into account when considering their perspectives. Again, many people aren't checking their watches for accuracy either, but I have to assume at least some people would notice if their watch is running >30s/d.

Considering these factors, the data suggest that the 32xx issue is not as widespread as some comments in this forum indicate. We should be cautious about overgeneralizing the experiences of a relatively small group of watch owners.

That said, this doesn't mean the issue should be dismissed. Sharing our experiences and helping each other is always valuable.

A tour de force of rational thought. BRAVO!

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by Cassian739

I've been trying to get a balanced view on the 32xx low-amplitude movement issues and their prevalence among Rolex owners. Here's my perspective, and I understand that many may have different opinions, which I respect:

In the poll, only 1,218 members (0.4% of the +284,000 members) participated, with 284 reporting the low amplitude issue and timekeeping >5s/d. This represents a mere 0.1% of the total forum membership. Considering that the majority of modern Rolex watches since 2015 have the 32xx movement, amounting to millions of watches worldwide, I expected more dialogue on the issue. I acknowledge that many forum members may not be active anymore, may not own watches with the 32xx movement, or may own newer watches without issues. Additionally, not all members are watch enthusiasts who closely track accuracy.

Regarding comments from certified Rolex technicians, their expertise and dedication to their craft are admirable. However, it's important to remember that their experiences primarily involve working on watches with problems daily, which may not provide a complete picture of the average Rolex watch owner's experience. With millions of 32xx movements in circulation, the vast majority of which have not gone into service for amplitude issues, it's important to take this into account when considering their perspectives. Again, many people aren't checking their watches for accuracy either, but I have to assume more people would notice if their watch is running >30s/d.

Considering these factors, the data suggest that the 32xx issue is not as widespread as some comments in this forum indicate. We should be cautious about overgeneralizing the experiences of a relatively small group of watch owners.

That said, this doesn't mean the issue should be dismissed. Sharing our experiences and helping each other is always valuable.

We don't have anything like that many active members. I'd be surprised if we have much more than 1% of that number actively taking part in forum discussion

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by Cassian739

I've been trying to get a balanced view on the 32xx low-amplitude movement issues and their prevalence among Rolex owners. Here's my perspective, and I understand that many may have different opinions, which I respect:

In the poll, only 1,218 members (0.4% of the +284,000 members) participated, with 284 reporting the low amplitude issue and timekeeping >5s/d. This represents a mere 0.1% of the total forum membership. Considering that the majority of modern Rolex watches since 2015 have the 32xx movement, amounting to millions of watches worldwide, I expected more dialogue on the issue. I acknowledge that many forum members may not be active anymore, may not own watches with the 32xx movement, or may own newer watches without issues. Additionally, not all members are watch enthusiasts who closely track accuracy.

Regarding comments from certified Rolex technicians, their expertise and dedication to their craft are admirable. However, it's important to remember that their experiences primarily involve working on watches with problems daily, which may not provide a complete picture of the average Rolex watch owner's experience. With millions of 32xx movements in circulation, the vast majority of which have not gone into service for amplitude issues, it's important to take this into account when considering their perspectives. Again, many people aren't checking their watches for accuracy either, but I have to assume more people would notice if their watch is running >30s/d.

Considering these factors, the data suggest that the 32xx issue is not as widespread as some comments in this forum indicate. We should be cautious about overgeneralizing the experiences of a relatively small group of watch owners.

That said, this doesn't mean the issue should be dismissed. Sharing our experiences and helping each other is always valuable.

This was 100% my POV until some of the recent comments from Bas. Someone please correct me if I am misunderstanding or misquoting anything. But he seemed to suggest there is a design issue inherent in these movements and they will all develop low amplitude issues at some point.

I agree with you that if you just look at anecdotal data and attempt to do some math, this problem sure seems like it's not widespread at all. But OTOH you have a Rolex watchmaker saying there is an inherent defect with the movement. That deeply concerns me.

Having said that, he also stated he was confident Rolex will eventually rectify the issue. So I can't on the one hand take what he says and say "yes these movements will all develop issues" and otoh say "I better get rid of them because Rolex will never figure it out".

Hence why I'm somewhat trying to stay level headed and will keep my 32xx movement Rolexes for now (if I sell them it won't be because of the movement haha). But I also don't plan on adding any more 32xx watches either. For me personally this is the right approach.

[DG123]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

This was 100% my POV until some of the recent comments from Bas.

.

It seems like several participants here are hanging their hats on commentary made by "Bas". I ask is he a Rolex engineer employee and, or how is he qualified to make definitive statements about Rolex product design?
Remember, Rolex is a $9 billion annual sales revenue corporation and I imagine that the company employs dozens of engineers, R&D staff, designers etc...