If Rolex decreased the power reserve to 48 hours…

[TheVTCGuy]

There seems to be a very touchy subject about the 32 series having issues… At least that is what I have heard, anyway. Hypothetical situation:

The 33 series is introduced and only has a 48 hour (ish) power reserve, digressing from the 70 (ish) the current 32 series has. There is some sentiment that possibly the rush to increase the reserve is a cause, or at least a contributor to the amplitude issue. Would that be terrible for Rolex? I guess there are two parts to this question. The first, is how much, if at all, do you care your watch only has 48 (ish) hours of power reserve, and second: Would this be a terrible public relations event for Rolex? Would the industry see it as a failure? Interesting points.

Here is my opinion. First, it would not bother me in the least if my watch only had 48 hours of reserve. If I regularly didn’t wear it for that length of time and did not care to keep setting and winding it, there is always the option of a winder, but the second is a much more complicated issue. My feeling is that while it would be seen as some kind of “failure” or “mistake” on Rolex’ part, I don’t think 32 series watches would be selling for pennies on the dollar in a mad rush to dump them; there would not be a sudden-flood of all 32 movement watches on the market at bargain prices. Am I wrong on this one?

[Krash]

I have a Sub with the 3130 and a DJ41 with the 3235 movement.

When I had just my Sub, I don’t recall ever needing extended power reserve. 48 hours was always fine for me. When I got the DJ41, the additional power reserve was nice but, I could probably do without it if I had to.

With that said, it is sort of disappointing they would have to resort to that. This isn’t an issue for other brands, is it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Subshark1861]

As far as I can make out, the problem isn't only the mainspring barrel. It's the Chronogy escapement and wear on the minute pinion.
So if Rolex can't resolve it, they will have to lose face and redesign the escapement at least.
Presumably the pinion problem is easier to solve.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by Krash

I have a Sub with the 3130 and a DJ41 with the 3235 movement.

When I had just my Sub, I don’t recall ever needing extended power reserve. 48 hours was always fine for me. When I got the DJ41, the additional power reserve was nice but, I could probably do without it if I had to.

With that said, it is sort of disappointing they would have to resort to that. This isn’t an issue for other brands, is it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not that I know of, and you’re right, it would be disappointing. Arguably the greatest watch company in the world digressing like that. I don’t think they would resort to that, but wonder if it were to happen, would the 32 series watches, probably several million of them out there, immediately be rendered next to worthless? We will probably never know but it sure would shake up the market.

[Mr Ben]

I can’t imagine this thread will generate any controversy or arguments at all.

For my part, I have a 3285 movement and so far mine has run perfectly but I have read the various educated and uneducated posts on the point so I understand the problem and know it’s a possible issue with my watch. It wouldn’t make dump the watch though - I’ve owned cars in the past with well publicised weak points and as long as I love them and they can be repaired, I’ll stick with it and deal with it if it happens.

On the actual questions: Would I care if the power reserve was 48 hours? No - it wouldn’t bother me at all.

Do I think Rolex would lose face? Definitely - I think it would be quite damaging and embarrassing if others can make it work and Rolex can’t - especially tudor…

I can’t see Rolex taking a backward step on power reserve - it would be fine if they hadn't increased it in the first place and they could have argued that a 48 hour reserve was a more robust, reliable Rolex type approach. Now that they have increased it, to take a step backwards would be like admitting they can’t figure out technically how to do it and that would be more damaging in my mind.

[travisb]

I was perfectly fine when it was 40 hrs and feel the same now with 70 as I've had zero issues so it would have no effect on my level of enjoyment.
I couldn't see Rolex back tracking so to speak.

[Navin Johnson]

48hrs power reserve would not bother me. I care more about accuracy and longevity

[brandrea]

Thanks Paul

[Driver8]

I think Rolex would be stuck between a rock and a hard place on this. Reducing the power reserve would be a PR disaster as the whole industry seems to be going in the other direction, and it would also mean admitting an issue with the current set-up. Rolex would no longer be seen as the infallible, gold-plated standard.

Personally I don't care about extended power reserves myself. 48 hours is more than enough, and I'd rather have a rock solid 48 hours than a potentially flaky 70.

[kkqd1337]

I know there is a lot of tittle tattle on forums about the 32 movements. But does anyone have a link to an authoritative source that has done some sort of deep dive analysis of the 32 movement with expert sources?

Sorry if this is an obvious question but I can’t find one.

[Old Expat Beast]

My Black Bay (bought 2012) and Heritage Ranger (bought 2014) both have Tudor/ETA 2824-2 movements with only 38 hours power reserve. Neither has ever given out on me unexpectedly. Both are also still keeping COSC time, with no servicing yet required. I wonder how many 32xx movements will achieve that.

[White Collar Boy]

Originally Posted by kkqd1337

I know there is a lot of tittle tattle on forums about the 32 movements. But does anyone have a link to an authoritative source that has done some sort of deep dive analysis of the 32 movement with expert sources?

Sorry if this is an obvious question but I can’t find one.

While not the deep-dive analysis you are asking for, our TRF-resident RSC watchmaker Bas (username ‘Searchart’) has mentioned several times that it is a real thing. I take him as a credible authority.

[shedlock2000]

I don’t care in the slightest about power reserve. I never take my watch off!

If they made it 24 hours and gave us back matt dials and aluminium bezels, I’d be far happier.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[J!m]

I suspect Rolex is on the issue and when watches go in for service they will replace the parts without consent. Same as they do with crowns to put “better” ones on which destroy the original look.

But at least you can’t see the movement in these.

Perhaps this R&D project is what began the huge outage and scarcity nonsense years back…

[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.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by J!m

Perhaps this R&D project is what began the huge outage and scarcity nonsense years back…

This is the first time I've seen anyone suggest this, but on reflection it's actually quite an interesting thought.

[dannyp]

If I could be certain that this new 48hr movement had the reliability of the 31xx, I'd have no issues whatsoever.

To answer your second question, I think it's only a blunder if Rolex uses 48hr PR movements universally. If it did as every other watchmaker does, and had a greater variety of movements of different sizes in production, then face saved. No reason there can't be a 33xx for the 36mm pieces (that's a 31xx in disguise, lol) and a 34xx for the 40mm+ pieces that doesn't require the 32xx compromises and has 70hr+ PR.

As to the 32xx watches in existence... I think that those who don't care still won't, those who always want the latest will rush to the next generation, and those who think of anything short-lived as an "investment" will flock to them.

[Ollie1982]

I'd take a 48 hour PR movement in a second if it meant no more low amplitude issues.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

My Black Bay (bought 2012) and Heritage Ranger (bought 2014) both have Tudor/ETA 2824-2 movements with only 38 hours power reserve. Neither has ever given out on me unexpectedly. Both are also still keeping COSC time, with no servicing yet required. I wonder how many 32xx movements will achieve that.

Probably none Adam

My SXK isn’t at all that accurate (runs about 2 minutes fast over a week), but that’s good enough for me.

I hear they don’t need servicing all that often as well

[Easy E]

48 and accurate is my preference.

The PR-PR showdown. Public relations, in the blue corner vs power reserve, in the red corner. Epic bunkhouse battle royal.

[fmc000]

Originally Posted by J!m

Perhaps this R&D project is what began the huge outage and scarcity nonsense years back…

Oh well, you may actually have a point. The real problem is that we will never know.

[Tim Plains]

48 isn't enough for those who put their watch down Friday after work and leave it until Monday morning. I can't see it happening given their 'budget brand' has 70 hours.

As for myself, 12-15 hours is enough.

[fskywalker]

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.

+1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[watchwatcher]

I guess they could, but the message that would send to the rest of the world is they can't make a dependable 70 hr PR movement...


Do you really think that's going to happen? I don't.

[Yobber76]

I would hope that they will solve this problem and maintain 70 hours of power reserve sometime in the not so distant future. I suspect they won't ever publicly acknowledge the 32xx problem, which probably means they will charge people for fixing the low amplitude once past warranty. I don't think they will go backward, it would be too costly in PR and value of the brand. Whether they release a 33xx movement, a modified 32xx movement, or just quietly solve the problem and go on, we will wait and see.

[Fleetlord]

The vast majority of Rolex buyers wouldn’t notice anything at all.

As long as it says Rolex on the dial and it’s worth more than MSRP it’s perfectly fine.

[amh]

Unacceptable. Use different materials or change the design as necessary to become robust but don't reduce the PR. You drive to meet the published specification while remaining reliable. If Rolex must increase production cost or spend more on R&D/Test, so be it. Own it. Don't be like Apple. (Throttling down their phone CPU without telling anyone.)

[Yobber76]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

The vast majority of Rolex buyers wouldn’t notice anything at all.

As long as it says Rolex on the dial and it’s worth more than MSRP it’s perfectly fine.

I would tend to agree with this.

[Calatrava r]

If you wear the watch why would anyone need more than 40 to 48 hours power reserve. It was all about Rolex being able to say they are competitive with other brands on their PR.

I agree it is an interesting comment on the shortages a few years back with the R&D which we now know was going on back then.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Here is my opinion. First, it would not bother me in the least if my watch only had 48 hours of reserve. If I regularly didn’t wear it for that length of time and did not care to keep setting and winding it, there is always the option of a winder, but the second is a much more complicated issue. My feeling is that while it would be seen as some kind of “failure” or “mistake” on Rolex’ part, I don’t think 32 series watches would be selling for pennies on the dollar in a mad rush to dump them; there would not be a sudden-flood of all 32 movement watches on the market at bargain prices. Am I wrong on this one?

I’ll try not to upset anyone.

I agree, it’s always struck me that the 70 hour power reserve was a pointless stretch. If I need to keep a watch running off wrist for more than 48 hours I can simply give it a few winds as needed.

I also believe that Rolex has painted themselves into a corner with the 32XX movement. It will be hard for the urgent introduction of the 33XX not to be seen as an admission of failure of the 32XX. However short model runs often become more sought after. If that happens imagine the collectibility of having an unmolested 32XX that runs flawlessly. There will still be demand issues with Rolex and the 32XX’s will still be Rolexes. The bottom won’t fall out.