The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX


Go Back   Rolex Forums - Rolex Watch Forum > Rolex & Tudor Watch Topics > Rolex WatchTech

View Poll Results: Does your 32xx movement seem to be 100% ok?
Yes, no issues 998 70.53%
No, amplitude is low (below 200) but timekeeping is still fine 59 4.17%
No, amplitude is low (below 200) and timekeeping is off (>5 s/d) 358 25.30%
Voters: 1415. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 27 November 2022, 06:17 PM   #3211
saxo3
"TRF" Member
 
saxo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,658
32xx movement problem poll and data thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by CedCraig View Post
The next time I visit my AD I‘ll ask them to throw my new Air-King on their timegrapher.
Good idea.

Does low amplitude always presage poor timekeeping?
No.

What‘s the explanation for a watch keeping good time yet having low amplitude?
The explanation is called Isochronism, which is the property of an oscillating system, for example a pendulum or a mechanical watch, to perform either small or large oscillations always in the same period, independent of the amplitude. This property guarantees a constant rate and therefore the accuracy of a watch.

https://timetransformed.com/2016/10/22/isochronism/
saxo3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 November 2022, 11:46 PM   #3212
HiBoost
"TRF" Member
 
HiBoost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by CedCraig View Post
Does low amplitude always presage poor timekeeping?
I would argue yes. But let me explain. If we say normal horizontal amplitude is 270 and 250 is low, then will 250 always produce poor timekeeping? No. I've proven that. Nor will 230. Or even 210. BUT, what I would suggest is that once your movement reads low, it will continue to trend even lower. We have no evidence of a watch persisting at a given low amplitude indefinitely. Whatever problem caused 250 instead of 270 seems likely over time to produce 230 and so on...

The 32xx seems remarkably able to maintain good timekeeping with low amplitude, but at some point it simply cannot. I've seen in my data that the results become more erratic as the amplitude drops. The average timekeeping may still be ok, but it's jumping around like -6, +2, -13, +5, one sample after another. At higher amplitudes the timing is locked in and very solid.
HiBoost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2022, 01:09 AM   #3213
WatchSmith
2024 Pledge Member
 
WatchSmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 702
This was a power reserve test I did a year ago on a genuine Rolex 3230 movement. The last photo was made at 63 hours and the movement finally ran out @ 71.5 hours. Very impressive timekeeping all the way to the end.

I have since converted the movement to a 3235 and it still runs similarly.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMG_4854.JPG (127.4 KB, 209 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_4861.JPG (118.3 KB, 209 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_4871.JPG (132.2 KB, 211 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_4886.JPG (135.8 KB, 208 views)
WatchSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2022, 01:25 AM   #3214
CharlesN
"TRF" Member
 
CharlesN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The UK
Watch: I love them all.
Posts: 1,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triplock View Post
This was a power reserve test I did a year ago
I am just wondering about the Lift angle being set to 54 degrees.

Should it not have been set to 53 degrees which would give different results.
__________________
Regards,
CharlesN
Member of the IWJG.
CharlesN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2022, 01:44 AM   #3215
WatchSmith
2024 Pledge Member
 
WatchSmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 702
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesN View Post
I am just wondering about the Lift angle being set to 54 degrees.

Should it not have been set to 53 degrees which would give different results.
There was some confusion about lift angle awhile back and I believe 53° is correct. My test would indicate a slightly lower amplitude had I set it to 53° but it would be pretty slight.
WatchSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2022, 01:57 AM   #3216
dannyp
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by SearChart View Post
Yes, I did a DJ36 with 3235 from June this year just last week. But the problem is that we don't know exactly when that watch was produced, we can only see when the warranty card was activated.

But the other 4 I did were all close to 5 years old, 3 DJ41 and a SD43.


Worst thing is that not all have the wear on the pivot, many don't even show signs of internal wear & tear yet won't reach 180 degrees of amplitude fully wound... I wish I could pinpoint the issue, but I'm stumped, it just doesn't make sense why they run so badly and some are not affected at all.
Ok, I was reminded of two things I meant to ask back when you made this post (you know, a whole week ago...). I'd had two hypotheses about contributing factors during your absence, I was told both were stupid, and while I'm willing to believe that, nobody could explain to me why in terms I understood... Was hoping to ask you:

1. Magnetism. Had a watchmaker (Rolex AD/plaque service center) tell me that minor components of modern Rolex movements are still subject to magnetism, but that it could result in a slight slowdown (rather than the dramatic speed increase of older movements). This made me wonder if magnetized small components were creating unanticipated friction in areas with very tight tolerances for such and leading to issues? Essentially, something getting pulled ever so slightly out of alignment (where perhaps a greater tolerance existed on older movements)?

2. Same caliber, different hand lengths/weights. Historically, I don't recall Rolex using the exact same caliber on watches with such large dial diameter differences (and therefore hand lengths, and therefore hand weights). I know that it was always versions of the same calibers, but assumed that each variant was calibrated specifically to the amount of force needed to move the hands. If calibration is the same for all 32xx, but the lengths/weights of the hands aren't, I'd wondered if this could at least have something to do with the worn pivots?

Again, probably stupid, but never quite understood why...
dannyp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2022, 06:17 AM   #3217
CharlesN
"TRF" Member
 
CharlesN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The UK
Watch: I love them all.
Posts: 1,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triplock View Post
I have since converted the movement to a 3235 and it still runs similarly.
Do you mean that you have changed your watch or that you have converted your 3230 movement into a 3235 ?

If you have converted it what have you done for parts, a dial and so on ?

What oils did you use as they may differ especially for the purposes of non-migration etc. ?
__________________
Regards,
CharlesN
Member of the IWJG.
CharlesN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2022, 06:37 AM   #3218
Dirt
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyp View Post
2. Same caliber, different hand lengths/weights. Historically, I don't recall Rolex using the exact same caliber on watches with such large dial diameter differences (and therefore hand lengths, and therefore hand weights). I know that it was always versions of the same calibers, but assumed that each variant was calibrated specifically to the amount of force needed to move the hands. If calibration is the same for all 32xx, but the lengths/weights of the hands aren't, I'd wondered if this could at least have something to do with the worn pivots?

Again, probably stupid, but never quite understood why...
I don't think this is necessarily stupid, but in my theory it potentially plays a part in concert with a number of factors.

I have found that in cases like this, it's often a combination of factors that have knock on effects and compound to create a bad outcome.
Each factor in of itself may not necessarily be problematic and viewed as inconsequential in isolation but when working in unison cause problems.

Magnetism is a fairly remote possibility all things considered unless there is historical evidence to suggest that near on 25% of watches that present with a problem are magnetised to some degree
In all my years, I have only ever magnetised one watch and that was from moving rather large loud speakers when doing a spring clean.
The watch was freshly serviced 2 weeks prior and running to perfection. After that day of spring cleaning it was off the scale running fast but RSC de-magged it FOC and confirmed it was magnetised. Afterward, it was back to being perfect
Dirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2022, 06:37 AM   #3219
WatchSmith
2024 Pledge Member
 
WatchSmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 702
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesN View Post
Do you mean that you have changed your watch or that you have converted your 3230 movement into a 3235 ?

If you have converted it what have you done for parts, a dial and so on ?

What oils did you use as they may differ especially for the purposes of non-migration etc. ?
I converted the 3230 to 3235 using new genuine Rolex parts. I also used a genuine dial, bezel, crown, etc. It was properly lubricated per Rolex service manual.

The train bridge still says 3230 though. I'll change that at some point.
WatchSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2022, 06:51 AM   #3220
Dirt
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triplock View Post
There was some confusion about lift angle awhile back and I believe 53° is correct. My test would indicate a slightly lower amplitude had I set it to 53° but it would be pretty slight.
This

Typically one would be simply looking for amplitiudes down in the danger zone for this movement.
Dirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2022, 07:57 AM   #3221
dannyp
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirt View Post
I don't think this is necessarily stupid, but in my theory it potentially plays a part in concert with a number of factors.

I have found that in cases like this, it's often a combination of factors that have knock on effects and compound to create a bad outcome.
Each factor in of itself may not necessarily be problematic and viewed as inconsequential in isolation but when working in unison cause problems.

Magnetism is a fairly remote possibility all things considered unless there is historical evidence to suggest that near on 25% of watches that present with a problem are magnetised to some degree
In all my years, I have only ever magnetised one watch and that was from moving rather large loud speakers when doing a spring clean.
The watch was freshly serviced 2 weeks prior and running to perfection. After that day of spring cleaning it was off the scale running fast but RSC de-magged it FOC and confirmed it was magnetised. Afterward, it was back to being perfect
Well, I'd even go so far as to say that if the hand weight had an impact, it could even be that the worn seconds pivot is independent of "the" problem. Would be interesting to know the breakdown of watches with worn pivots vs those without them in terms of model/size.

Regarding magnetism... my thinking had been that if only minor components were magnetized, the effect wouldn't be noticed day to day (what the watchmaker told me was that this can produce minor slowing). Therefore, it may never be discovered, and it will not be fixed, or at least not for a while. The thing with magnetism and older watches is that the effects are profound, immediately noticeable, and have few if any differential diagnoses.

And, if Rolex never did extensive magnetism testing during R&D, then this is one potential condition that wouldn't have been replicated in the lab.
dannyp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2022, 10:19 AM   #3222
sski
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: FL
Watch: ♛ & ✠
Posts: 933
any resolution or fix in sight at all...? <fingers crossed for a good outcome>
sski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2022, 10:24 AM   #3223
ExplorerI
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: USA
Watch: Explorer I
Posts: 724
Does this affect the gmts as well?
ExplorerI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2022, 10:49 AM   #3224
saxo3
"TRF" Member
 
saxo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExplorerI View Post
Does this affect the gmts as well?
Yes, GMT's with 3285.
saxo3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2022, 12:48 PM   #3225
Dirt
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyp View Post
Well, I'd even go so far as to say that if the hand weight had an impact, it could even be that the worn seconds pivot is independent of "the" problem. Would be interesting to know the breakdown of watches with worn pivots vs those without them in terms of model/size.

Regarding magnetism... my thinking had been that if only minor components were magnetized, the effect wouldn't be noticed day to day (what the watchmaker told me was that this can produce minor slowing). Therefore, it may never be discovered, and it will not be fixed, or at least not for a while. The thing with magnetism and older watches is that the effects are profound, immediately noticeable, and have few if any differential diagnoses.

And, if Rolex never did extensive magnetism testing during R&D, then this is one potential condition that wouldn't have been replicated in the lab.
Hand weight is something that hasn't been full explored.
If one rests their watch on it's side and allows it to run down to a stop. The seconds hand almost always stops at the peak leverage on the upward swing of the rotation with a central seconds arrangement of a 3 hander.
I usually rest my watches on the 9 o'clock side when on thier side and it will come to a stop within about 5 seconds either side of 12 o'clock.
I simply take this as a demonstration of the fine nature of the physics involved also a broader appreciation.
I understand that a mechanical watch movement has more torque available to run the hands when compared with a quartz movement which is often factored into the design parameters of a watch, so weight of the hands are indeed an important factor as is the design of the hands when it comes to leverage.
Dirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2022, 03:35 PM   #3226
CedCraig
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 309
Is it technically possible to have a 31xx movement put into a 2022 Air-King?

If so, if my new Air-King develops „the plague“ can the RSC hot swap in a 31xx movement?
CedCraig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2022, 04:30 PM   #3227
SearChart
TechXpert
 
SearChart's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 23,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyp View Post
Ok, I was reminded of two things I meant to ask back when you made this post (you know, a whole week ago...). I'd had two hypotheses about contributing factors during your absence, I was told both were stupid, and while I'm willing to believe that, nobody could explain to me why in terms I understood... Was hoping to ask you:

1. Magnetism. Had a watchmaker (Rolex AD/plaque service center) tell me that minor components of modern Rolex movements are still subject to magnetism, but that it could result in a slight slowdown (rather than the dramatic speed increase of older movements). This made me wonder if magnetized small components were creating unanticipated friction in areas with very tight tolerances for such and leading to issues? Essentially, something getting pulled ever so slightly out of alignment (where perhaps a greater tolerance existed on older movements)?

2. Same caliber, different hand lengths/weights. Historically, I don't recall Rolex using the exact same caliber on watches with such large dial diameter differences (and therefore hand lengths, and therefore hand weights). I know that it was always versions of the same calibers, but assumed that each variant was calibrated specifically to the amount of force needed to move the hands. If calibration is the same for all 32xx, but the lengths/weights of the hands aren't, I'd wondered if this could at least have something to do with the worn pivots?

Again, probably stupid, but never quite understood why...
No stupid questions at all.

A movement contains a lot of steel parts that can be magnetised. When you don't demagnetise the movement before disassembly you'll often find that screws and springs will cling to the steek tweezers, larger objects like gears (of which the pivots and pinions are steel) are too heavy and are never magnetised strongly enough to stick.

The biggest problem will always be the hairspring and these parachrom hairsprings just cannot be magnetised, so the effect of magnetism from daily life is negligible.

As for the second question, these forces are negligible too.

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GB-man View Post
Rolex uses rare elves to polish the platinum. They have a union deal and make like $90 per hour and get time and half on weekends.
SearChart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2022, 04:42 PM   #3228
SearChart
TechXpert
 
SearChart's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 23,444
Over the years (and this can be verified by other watchmakers throughout the industry) watch brands have made production processes more efficient and ultimately cheaped out on some things as cost cutting measures. This is also why TVs and washing machines don't last 25 years anymore...

You'll find that movements from the early to mid 20th century have used burnished steel for pivots, making them incredibly hardened and resistant to wear and tear.
I've serviced old 15×× movements that were worn 30+ years since the last service and none of the gear train pivots or even the rotor axle had a mark on it, after running dry. Do that with a newer 3135 and you'll have a rotor grinding your bridges down within a year.
Even early 31 series movements had stronger steel than you find nowadays.

Old school burnishing is a time consuming method and cannot be done efficiently in mass production, so it's done faster with a different method called electrolytic burnishing, which is just not as good.

Rolex could have used a different steel alloy and burnishing technique for the production of 32×× parts. Making parts that were already susceptible to wear even weaker.
Just food for thought.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GB-man View Post
Rolex uses rare elves to polish the platinum. They have a union deal and make like $90 per hour and get time and half on weekends.
SearChart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2022, 05:13 PM   #3229
Chewbacca
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Real Name: CJ
Location: Kashyyyk
Watch: Kessel Run Chrono
Posts: 21,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by SearChart View Post
Over the years (and this can be verified by other watchmakers throughout the industry) watch brands have made production processes more efficient and ultimately cheaped out on some things as cost cutting measures. This is also why TVs and washing machines don't last 25 years anymore...

You'll find that movements from the early to mid 20th century have used burnished steel for pivots, making them incredibly hardened and resistant to wear and tear.
I've serviced old 15×× movements that were worn 30+ years since the last service and none of the gear train pivots or even the rotor axle had a mark on it, after running dry. Do that with a newer 3135 and you'll have a rotor grinding your bridges down within a year.
Even early 31 series movements had stronger steel than you find nowadays.

Old school burnishing is a time consuming method and cannot be done efficiently in mass production, so it's done faster with a different method called electrolytic burnishing, which is just not as good.

Rolex could have used a different steel alloy and burnishing technique for the production of 32×× parts. Making parts that were already susceptible to wear even weaker.
Just food for thought.

Love this insight Bas. Gotta read more on it now
Chewbacca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2022, 06:44 PM   #3230
Dirt
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by SearChart View Post
Over the years (and this can be verified by other watchmakers throughout the industry) watch brands have made production processes more efficient and ultimately cheaped out on some things as cost cutting measures. This is also why TVs and washing machines don't last 25 years anymore...

You'll find that movements from the early to mid 20th century have used burnished steel for pivots, making them incredibly hardened and resistant to wear and tear.
I've serviced old 15×× movements that were worn 30+ years since the last service and none of the gear train pivots or even the rotor axle had a mark on it, after running dry. Do that with a newer 3135 and you'll have a rotor grinding your bridges down within a year.
Even early 31 series movements had stronger steel than you find nowadays.

Old school burnishing is a time consuming method and cannot be done efficiently in mass production, so it's done faster with a different method called electrolytic burnishing, which is just not as good.

Rolex could have used a different steel alloy and burnishing technique for the production of 32×× parts. Making parts that were already susceptible to wear even weaker.
Just food for thought.
Yes.
I note you have mentioned this aspect of current material standards and processes before which has stuck in my mind.
If I recall correctly you also mentioned that all manufacturers are adopting this manufacturing principal.
Who knows, we may have hit the nail right on the head with this and if so, then the fix is simple enough.
It only takes the will of the mothership to put it right.
Perhaps this is what the new facility they are building will be dedicated to?
And then they could claim superiority over the competition by applying a proprietary name to it and by extention charge more.
Dirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2022, 10:57 PM   #3231
dannyp
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by SearChart View Post
Over the years (and this can be verified by other watchmakers throughout the industry) watch brands have made production processes more efficient and ultimately cheaped out on some things as cost cutting measures. This is also why TVs and washing machines don't last 25 years anymore...

You'll find that movements from the early to mid 20th century have used burnished steel for pivots, making them incredibly hardened and resistant to wear and tear.
I've serviced old 15×× movements that were worn 30+ years since the last service and none of the gear train pivots or even the rotor axle had a mark on it, after running dry. Do that with a newer 3135 and you'll have a rotor grinding your bridges down within a year.
Even early 31 series movements had stronger steel than you find nowadays.

Old school burnishing is a time consuming method and cannot be done efficiently in mass production, so it's done faster with a different method called electrolytic burnishing, which is just not as good.

Rolex could have used a different steel alloy and burnishing technique for the production of 32×× parts. Making parts that were already susceptible to wear even weaker.
Just food for thought.
Also seems like more parts/modules are intended to be disposable these days. Isn't the whole mainspring barrel meant to just be replaced at service? Perhaps the 32xx issue is less a design flaw, but rather accelerated wearing out of components never meant to last a lifetime... Also sounds like some parts are utilizing other materials, like ceramic (the clicks you mentioned earlier).

I hear some, like Tissot, even intend for their automatic movements to be disposable. Was talking watches with a salesman in a watch shop who was wearing a PRX. Complimented him on it and he started talking about the tech behind developing it, how many parts were now plastic, and how at service the whole thing would be thrown out and replaced with a new one.

This is one reason I long for the five-digit (and earlier) days. Back then, scale was achieved with modular exterior/visible components. Thinking back, all Professional models (save for the small YMs and Daytonas) shared a virtually identical mid case with one another, or in the case of the Explorer, with the DJ. All 36/40mm pieces used same size dial/hands. Bracelets were also shared, with only clasps differing (which in turn were shared across other models).
dannyp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 November 2022, 12:41 AM   #3232
HiBoost
"TRF" Member
 
HiBoost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by SearChart View Post
Over the years (and this can be verified by other watchmakers throughout the industry) watch brands have made production processes more efficient and ultimately cheaped out on some things as cost cutting measures. This is also why TVs and washing machines don't last 25 years anymore...



You'll find that movements from the early to mid 20th century have used burnished steel for pivots, making them incredibly hardened and resistant to wear and tear.

I've serviced old 15×× movements that were worn 30+ years since the last service and none of the gear train pivots or even the rotor axle had a mark on it, after running dry. Do that with a newer 3135 and you'll have a rotor grinding your bridges down within a year.

Even early 31 series movements had stronger steel than you find nowadays.



Old school burnishing is a time consuming method and cannot be done efficiently in mass production, so it's done faster with a different method called electrolytic burnishing, which is just not as good.



Rolex could have used a different steel alloy and burnishing technique for the production of 32×× parts. Making parts that were already susceptible to wear even weaker.

Just food for thought.
Great food, indeed. This makes me wonder... could a modern 31xx or 32xx be handed to an independent, highly skilled watchmaker and that person perform the old school burnishing? The goal being to provide "old school longevity" to the new generation parts. Or would that process change tolerances and cause other issues?
HiBoost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 November 2022, 01:26 AM   #3233
dannyp
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiBoost View Post
Great food, indeed. This makes me wonder... could a modern 31xx or 32xx be handed to an independent, highly skilled watchmaker and that person perform the old school burnishing? The goal being to provide "old school longevity" to the new generation parts. Or would that process change tolerances and cause other issues?
With burnishing, isn’t there some loss of metal? Seems unlikely that you could do it without changing tolerances. Also, if other major components are intended to be replaced at service, what’s the point?
dannyp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 November 2022, 06:13 AM   #3234
douglasf13
"TRF" Member
 
douglasf13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 5,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyp View Post
Also seems like more parts/modules are intended to be disposable these days. Isn't the whole mainspring barrel meant to just be replaced at service? Perhaps the 32xx issue is less a design flaw, but rather accelerated wearing out of components never meant to last a lifetime... Also sounds like some parts are utilizing other materials, like ceramic (the clicks you mentioned earlier).
Porsche did that at the end of the ‘90s with the 996, and it led to major engine issues and a build quality not up to par vs. earlier 911s. Man, I don’t miss that creaky interior.
douglasf13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 November 2022, 08:52 AM   #3235
HiBoost
"TRF" Member
 
HiBoost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyp View Post
With burnishing, isn’t there some loss of metal? Seems unlikely that you could do it without changing tolerances. Also, if other major components are intended to be replaced at service, what’s the point?
Burnishing is more of a surface treatment. If done properly it should reshape the surface, not remove it. You can burnish anything from leather to wood to metal. It's different from a process which removes material via abrasives.

What's the point? Having parts that last much longer. I thought Searchart gave a pretty compelling account of how much longer life you get out of properly burnished parts. It seems like a potential mod would be to have a watchmaker procure new factory parts (presuming yours have already trashed themselves), then process them in a way to extend their service life. Heat or cryo treatments could be explored as well, just as we do with tools and engine/trans parts. In my view, in a world where Rolex no longer knows how to make long-term reliable movements, we have to get creative.
HiBoost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 November 2022, 10:10 AM   #3236
CedCraig
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 309
Any brands in the $5k to $15k range that have quality like in the good ‚ol days? JLC, GO, Habring2, Moser?
CedCraig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 November 2022, 11:48 AM   #3237
dannyp
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiBoost View Post
Burnishing is more of a surface treatment. If done properly it should reshape the surface, not remove it. You can burnish anything from leather to wood to metal. It's different from a process which removes material via abrasives.

What's the point? Having parts that last much longer. I thought Searchart gave a pretty compelling account of how much longer life you get out of properly burnished parts. It seems like a potential mod would be to have a watchmaker procure new factory parts (presuming yours have already trashed themselves), then process them in a way to extend their service life. Heat or cryo treatments could be explored as well, just as we do with tools and engine/trans parts. In my view, in a world where Rolex no longer knows how to make long-term reliable movements, we have to get creative.
I totally get that. What seems pointless to me is bothering to do that, but still having to replace the whole mainspring barrel at service. If Whole movement could then go 30 years in between, I’d be all about it.
dannyp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 November 2022, 06:55 PM   #3238
Dirt
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by CedCraig View Post
Any brands in the $5k to $15k range that have quality like in the good ‚ol days? JLC, GO, Habring2, Moser?
Maybe Grand Seiko?
I believe they make everything in-house and I assume the Japanese have always been masters of metalurgy, so why not manufacture to true standards of excellence
Dirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 November 2022, 12:50 AM   #3239
HiBoost
"TRF" Member
 
HiBoost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyp View Post
I totally get that. What seems pointless to me is bothering to do that, but still having to replace the whole mainspring barrel at service. If Whole movement could then go 30 years in between, I’d be all about it.
Thus far I don't recall hearing of any bad mainsprings in 32xx movements. True, it does not appear to be a serviceable part. But unless the springs prove to be regularly fatiguing to the point of breakage, I think this part of the movement stands to endure far longer than the train. If a new spring will deliver 70 hours of power reserve for 8-10 years, even if it degrades somewhat perhaps it will do 50-60 hours for the next 10? Power reserve, provided it is >= 40 hours, doesn't really matter to me. I just want a watch that is consistent in its timekeeping while it is being worn or wound.
HiBoost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 November 2022, 01:58 AM   #3240
dannyp
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiBoost View Post
Thus far I don't recall hearing of any bad mainsprings in 32xx movements. True, it does not appear to be a serviceable part. But unless the springs prove to be regularly fatiguing to the point of breakage, I think this part of the movement stands to endure far longer than the train. If a new spring will deliver 70 hours of power reserve for 8-10 years, even if it degrades somewhat perhaps it will do 50-60 hours for the next 10? Power reserve, provided it is >= 40 hours, doesn't really matter to me. I just want a watch that is consistent in its timekeeping while it is being worn or wound.
Ok, I’ll concede that; good point. However I’d still be wary of the fact that this only works if there isn’t some other weak link that’ll still necessitate more frequent service.

Once again, though, I miss the days when Omega didn’t set the standard for “attributes to beat on paper” and Rolex found itself playing catch-up. Used to be that “standards to beat” were discovered in the real world.
dannyp is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Takuya Watches

Bobs Watches

Asset Appeal

My Watch LLC

OCWatches

DavidSW Watches

Coronet


*Banners Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.





Copyright ©2004-2024, The Rolex Forums. All Rights Reserved.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rolex is a registered trademark of ROLEX USA. The Rolex Forums is not affiliated with ROLEX USA in any way.