If Rolex decreased the power reserve to 48 hours…

[Krash]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yeah, that would be a PR disaster. It would have been okay if they just didn’t try to begin with. Nobody would have cared, but you can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mystro]

From an accuracy point of view throughout the power reserve would be less. Accuracy is always optimal at the top half of the power reserve. The 32 series power reserve does maintain optimal accuracy longer than the 31 series as they wind down. This is very obvious when doing a power reserve test and monitoring its accuracy of both movements as they wind down. The practical advantage of a longer power reserve is maintaining optimal accuracy longer than just keeping the movement alive.

My latest power reserve test kept my Sub LVc at COSC accuracy 60 hours into the power reserve test.

[CarlOver]

Amplitude was mentioned. Various parts were speculated to be problematic. Is there a thorough write up on this?

[Old Geezer]

I'm totally OK with 40 hours on my other watches so it wouldn't be a big deal for me.

[amh]

Originally Posted by CarlOver

Amplitude was mentioned. Various parts were speculated to be problematic. Is there a thorough write up on this?

There is, but people will simply point to the single source of this information. It would be wonderful to have a 2nd and 3rd opinion.

[Mystro]

With too week of an amplitude then you should see accuracy fall off the table 12-24 hours into a power reserve test. “Too low amplitude” equates in the movement’s ability to maintain enough energy to keep its accuracy. If your watch maintains excellent accuracy well past the 50% mark in a power reserve test then you don’t have a low amplitude problem regardless what a Timegrapher reads. This is where many are too caught up in numbers and can’t see the forest through the trees. If your watch is keeping great time 2 days off your wrist you are good to go.

[Cru Jones]

I think it's more probable that Rolex incrementally fixes the movement compared to issuing a new one with a dramatically lower power reserve. Today, rightly or wrongly, one simply cannot market a luxury watch with around 40-50 hours of power reserve. The market expects more.

[Pablito]

I'd rather have a 48 or even 40 hrs power reserve than accuracy issues as I'm currently experience with 2 watches of my collection.. I repeat it again, what is sold to me every time I'm getting exposed to their digital marketing is "Precision at every level". I didn't invent it, they keep on selling this to me and all other customers. Even when I read some beautiful books ont the brand history, what Sir Wilsdorf aimed at when creating Rolex is : PRECISION (in the air, the sea, over the mountain). So this is what I want. Period

[slide13]

Yeah, a 40ish power reserve would be just fine with me. If I could have a 3135 movement in my 126610 I'd happily take that.

But, I don't think Rolex would come out with a down-spec'd movement. It would be seen as a failure in the industry for sure. How can Rolex not design a robust movement with a 70hr power reserve when Tudor already has one.

I think the question is whether they figure out how to fix the 32xx and turn it into a robust movement or if they push out a 33xx movement sooner than they otherwise would. Could see that going either way.

[CedCraig]

For me, 48 hours of power reserve is plenty. I‘d much rather have a reliable watch with 48 hours than a non-reliable or questionable watch with 70 hours. A few of my watches have 40 hours and I‘ve never had an issue.

[Dr. Robert]

Originally Posted by 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

Don’t forget lug holes :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jack T]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

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.

I agree, the stretch to 70 hours was pointless, I see it as Rolex chasing the market trend, not leading it. Likewise, the exhibition case back, people may like it on a truly artistically finished rotor and other visible parts, but not on a workhorse Rolex. Again, chasing the upper tier haute horology brands, where not one single watch sat unsold because of a perceived lack of status.

As for the introduction of a 3300 series, yes, it will seem like a concession, but I doubt it will have any positive affect on the 3200 series models. There will remain lingering doubts, fears of ticking (sic) troubles that can show up in year 6 or beyond.

[GradyPhilpott]

I don't require a power reserve of more than forty some odd hours, much less 70 some odd hours.

[Barada7]

48 hours is plenty. I’d gladly make that compromise to get back to the Rolex reputation for durability that helped establish my interest in the brand.

[slide13]

As much as the majority, myself included, seem to agree a longer power reserve isn't necessary and certainly not at the expense of reliability, I don't think they could have released a new movement without it. Not without it being seen as a big misstep and seriously lacking in modern performance. Regardless of how useful the average watch buyers finds that functionality it's become a pretty standard benchmark.

Now, they could have kept going with the 31xx movements though without issue until they had a solid modern movement that was fully vetted/tested. Everybody seems to love that movement and it's renowned for it's reliability.

[Blanch]

Apple had issues with antenna placement on the iphone 3 (or iphone 4). Apple fixed the issue with the next model.
Samsung Galaxy 7 had batteries blowing up. Samsung fixed the issues with the next model.
Microsoft had terrible reviews on Windows Vista, Windows 8, and even Windows 10. Microsoft is doing rather well with Win 11.
Car manufacturers have errors and recalls all the time.

Rolex jumping to a new 33xx movement will be seen as a plus for the quick fix and improvement. Reputations are usually strengthened when faults are admitted and corrected. It's the denial and lack of taking accountability that hurts reputations.

[Commander C.]

I don't want, much less need, a 70-hour power reserve, but everything else being equal, a longer power reserve is better than a shorter power reserve. At this point, there is no way Rolex will back off from 70 hours, at least not by much. What I don't understand is why Rolex was unable to achieve a 70-hour power reserve without redesigning their movements such that, even on paper, the movements are less robust. Maybe a decision was made by Rolex that accuracy, at least over the short term, is now more important than robustness. After all, most (all?) contemporary Rolex buyers are seeking a luxury product rather than a durable tool watch they can take diving or climbing or caving or piloting a commercial airliner.

[enjoythemusic]

i'll take solid reliability over a few more hours of power reserve.

[Gearjockey]

What they need to do is go back to the “old Rolex”.

Everyone liked it better. Just “re-engine” the 32xx with the 31xx with an improved 50 hr PR.

[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

[slide13]

I think the whole weekend thing is built around the idea that some people feel the need to flaunt their watches at work and then put on a beater on the weekend so as not to...I don't even know why really....I don't get it either.

I typically just have one watch I wear and I take it off at night and put it on first thing in the morning. Power reserve for me comes into play mostly when I get sick and end up barely leaving the couch for a day or two...other than that never an issue.

[amh]

Originally Posted by Mystro

With too week of an amplitude then you should see accuracy fall off the table 12-24 hours into a power reserve test. “Too low amplitude” equates in the movement’s ability to maintain enough energy to keep its accuracy. If your watch maintains excellent accuracy well past the 50% mark in a power reserve test then you don’t have a low amplitude problem regardless what a Timegrapher reads. This is where many are too caught up in numbers and can’t see the forest through the trees. If your watch is keeping great time 2 days off your wrist you are good to go.

Indeed.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Pablito

I'd rather have a 48 or even 40 hrs power reserve than accuracy issues as I'm currently experience with 2 watches of my collection.. I repeat it again, what is sold to me every time I'm getting exposed to their digital marketing is "Precision at every level". I didn't invent it, they keep on selling this to me and all other customers. Even when I read some beautiful books ont the brand history, what Sir Wilsdorf aimed at when creating Rolex is : PRECISION (in the air, the sea, over the mountain). So this is what I want. Period

Superb

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

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

You heard it here first

8-day is easily possible.

[Dirt]

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.

Yes, but only if it has box and papers

[Mr Ben]

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

Depends on your job and hobbies surely. My job is low impact sitting at a computer and on the phone billing by the minute so a Rolex is good.

My hobbies are mountain biking, golf and working on an old house. So the g shock gets the mountain biking and paint splatters on the weekend. If you were, say, a bricklayer during the week who enjoyed playing classical cello on the weekend, it would be the other way round…

[shedlock2000]

Originally Posted by Dr. Robert

Don’t forget lug holes :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Those too!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gab27]

My watch has a 48 hour power reserve and, honestly, I wouldn't care even if it was 24 hours provided it kept reliable time during its reserve. I don't really see the point of these longer power reserves for most owners and I never understood the criticism levied at the 3135 regarding it having 'too short' of a power reserve.

If their next movement had a shorter reserve, I would not see it as a failure if it made technical improvements in other areas, such as longer service intervals, improved reliability, improved accuracy, or more simple/less expensive overhauls. For example, if their next movement had a 48 hour power reserve but could go an average of 15 years between service intervals, I would consider that a huge technical improvement.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Gab27

My watch has a 48 hour power reserve and, honestly, I wouldn't care even if it was 24 hours provided it kept reliable time during its reserve. I don't really see the point of these longer power reserves for most owners and I never understood the criticism levied at the 3135 regarding it having 'too short' of a power reserve.

If their next movement had a shorter reserve, I would not see it as a failure if it made technical improvements in other areas, such as longer service intervals, improved reliability, improved accuracy, or more simple/less expensive overhauls. For example, if their next movement had a 48 hour power reserve but could go an average of 15 years between service intervals, I would consider that a huge technical improvement.

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.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

8-day is easily possible.

Not in mainstream sized watch movements.
Surely, you can't be serious