32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by saxo3

< 48 hours is very likely not the power reserve (PR) of your watch.
What to do?

(1) full winding with 40+ full clown turns,
(2) read and note time,
(3) don't wear watch but set it down in dial up (DU) position,
(4) don't touch watch,
(5) wait until watch stops running,
(6) read and note time,
(7) calculate difference (6) – (2) in hours : minutes : seconds,
(8) that is the PR of your watch (in DU position),
(9) post result on TRF.

Nothing to do at all with science

If only all customers knew this, it would take care of many perceived power reserve issues.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by SearChart

If only all customers knew this, it would take care of many perceived power reserve issues.

And I wondered that this step-by-step list would be by far too trivial, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by saxo3

And I wondered that this step-by-step list would be by far too trivial, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Not at all
It's rude to say but I sometimes wonder how some individuals even manage to acquire enough funds for these watches, when basic things like setting the date is too challenging for them.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Not at all
It's rude to say but I sometimes wonder how some individuals even manage to acquire enough funds for these watches, when basic things like setting the date is too challenging for them.

That's because you're looking at it all wrong, given where the money-making seems to be. I often say to myself:

If I were 20% smarter, I could make 50% more money. If I were 30% dumber, I could get rich.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Not at all

It's rude to say but I sometimes wonder how some individuals even manage to acquire enough funds for these watches, when basic things like setting the date is too challenging for them.

I also think there is an element of luxury which to some customers almost discourages learning such things. Much in the same way that a wealthy person may have a nice car, but a very rich person has a driver. Almost to imply operating the machine is beneath him. At my AD, there is a procession of old rich ladies who come in the first of any month where the date needs to be corrected

[Andad]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

I also think there is an element of luxury which to some customers almost discourages learning such things. Much in the same way that a wealthy person may have a nice car, but a very rich person has a driver. Almost to imply operating the machine is beneath him. At my AD, there is a procession of old rich ladies who come in the first of any month where the date needs to be corrected

But no old rich men?

[Andad]

Originally Posted by SearChart

If only all customers knew this, it would take care of many perceived power reserve issues.

Hi Bas,

My previous reply was t i c because I can’t think of any other way to check PR?

How else can it be done?



E

[sheldonsmith]

Below (or attached) is the data I collected from my SeaDweller 43 126600.

The first set of data is from September 2020, six months after obtaining the watch. I included these measurements in my note to the Rolex RSC indicating that there is obviously an issue.

Eight months later, the watch was sent in again to the Rolex RSC for another set adjustments/fixes/voodoo/holy water. The second time appeared to stick as the watch has since run well after the second trip.

The second set of data is from November 2022. Sharing now as I am trading in the watch. I have come to the conclusion that the watch is too big for me.

It is obvious that the 32xx series math work correctly (mainspring tension; lower amplitude, smaller escapement); once the issues addressed, the watch runs well in all positions and environments. It's also obvious that the 32xx movement is susceptible to serial manufacturing-isms when production scaled up to the more popular Rolex watch models. My 126710 GMT was sent back three times while I owned the watch.

The watch I am wearing now is a 39MM 214270 Explorer I (Mark II dial) with a 3130 movement. It's solid on the timing machine (good amplitude, solid line on the readout).

SAXO3 encouraged me to post my data so here it is.

-Sheldon

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by sheldonsmith

The first set of data is from September 2020, six months after obtaining the watch. I included these measurements in my note to the Rolex RSC indicating that there is obviously an issue.

Eight months later, the watch was sent in again to the Rolex RSC for another set adjustments/fixes/voodoo/holy water. The second time appeared to stick as the watch has since run well after the second trip.

As I understand your timeline...

1) March 2020 watch is acquired
2) Sept 2020 you sent the watch to RSC
3) You received it back
4) May of 2021 you sent the watch back to RSC


You measured it for #2 but did you ever measure 1, 3 or 4? Even if you don't have full data to post, the general trends would be interesting. For example, did it actually get worse from 1 to 2 or was it low amplitude when you received it? And did it come back at 3 with a higher amplitude only to drop again by 4 or did it never have its amplitude restored in the first place?

[sheldonsmith]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

As I understand your timeline...

1) March 2020 watch is acquired
2) Sept 2020 you sent the watch to RSC
3) You received it back
4) May of 2021 you sent the watch back to RSC

Yes, correct. After the second time to an RSC, the watch has been performing fine.

My gripe is that I never have had to send a Rolex to an RSC that had a 31xx movement, but with the two 32xx movement watches that I have owned (126710 and 126600) both watches required two laps to the RSC before they performed as expected.

The new 32xx movement, once whatever voodoo Rolex does to it at the RSC, runs exceptionally well, but getting to that point is unacceptable. It appears that the first time I send a 32xx movement into an RSC, they inspect, regulate faster and call it done. On the second RSC visit, my guess is that there is a movement rebuild, or replaced movement. Unfortunately, I did not record the movement base plate serial number(s) before sending to Rolex RSC. The wait time (three weeks) is the same whether its the first or second trip to a Rolex RSC.

Originally Posted by HiBoost

You measured it for #2 but did you ever measure 1, 3 or 4?

Not for #1 as the watch was new and not problematic

For #3, I did a quick measurement but did not record because I expected the watch to be problem free after the first trip to an RSC.

For #4, I am sure I measured, but I did not keep the recorded measurements.

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Even if you don't have full data to post, the general trends would be interesting.

For example, did it actually get worse from 1 to 2 or was it low amplitude when you received it? And did it come back at 3 with a higher amplitude only to drop again by 4 or did it never have its amplitude restored in the first place?

Going from memory, the watch had what I considered low amplitude from the beginning, but I learned later that was by design. The 32xx movements have lower amplitude and I was used to high 200s to low 300s amplitude numbers that we see on the 31xx.

Your summary is correct; degrading performance over time to the point which it was obvious that the RSC has to address it. I am always fearful that Rolex RSC would receive the watch and say that there is no problem. I would wait until the performance would degrade to the point were amplitude was less than 200.

Thank you for helping me clarify and thanks to SAXO3 for leading the discussion on this issue.

-Sheldon

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by sheldonsmith

Thank you for helping me clarify…

Sheldon, I had a look at your SD43 data tables (post #3264).

The timegrapher lift angle setting was 53 degrees?

I plotted your 5-position November 2022 data, which are interesting to me.

After the second RSC repair, your SD43 (caliber 3235) seems to perform very well, at least for 50 hours of the approx. 70 hours power reserve.

Another data point after about 60 hours would have been very nice.
Did you do measurements during the periods 23:00 – 01:00 or 05:00 – 08:00?

[sheldonsmith]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Sheldon, I had a look at your SD43 data tables (post #3264).

The timegrapher lift angle setting was 53 degrees?

Yes, correct. 53 degrees. Thank you for looking up my posted data.

~ Sheldon