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 954 71.19%
No, amplitude is low (below 200) but timekeeping is still fine 55 4.10%
No, amplitude is low (below 200) and timekeeping is off (>5 s/d) 331 24.70%
Voters: 1340. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 4 April 2022, 10:57 AM   #2311
goodolejr
2023 Pledge Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Real Name: J.R.
Location: Texas
Posts: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by amanbra View Post
Damn, another one..
Frustrating.
__________________
116500LN (white)
116610LV
116622 (blue)
118238 (white)
124200 (silver)
Ω De Ville Jumping Hours 4853.61
goodolejr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 April 2022, 11:53 AM   #2312
dannyp
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
Ok, I have a new theory here. It may seem outlandish, and there may be reasons any watchmaker could tell me that immediately disprove it. But here it is: Magnetism.

Yes, I realize that the movements' key components are as antimagnetic as they've ever been. But I think that may be part of the problem: Magnetism only affects the minor components, and therefore goes unnoticed for much, much longer. In other words, a lesser/older movement would show signs of erratic behavior long before parts have actually worn out.

It would certainly explain why some movements are impacted and others not so much - some get magnetized and some don't. But what I hadn't known until recently is what can happen when minor components (and only those components) are magnetized. The strain on them becomes greater and watches can slow down, as opposed to when it happens with springs and the watch speeds up.

Thoughts?
dannyp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 April 2022, 12:33 PM   #2313
Dirt
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by amanbra View Post
Damn, another one..
Have you checked out the great thread about the longest record for a service yet?
It'll make you want to go vintage and forget about the latest and greatest
I'll wager none of these new ones will go similar distances
Dirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 April 2022, 12:35 PM   #2314
amanbra
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Real Name: Graham
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirt View Post
Have you checked out the great thread about the longest record for a service yet?
It'll make you want to go vintage and forget about the latest and greatest
I'll wager none of these new ones will go similar distances
yeah i don't disagree with you.
amanbra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 April 2022, 03:47 PM   #2315
saxo3
"TRF" Member
 
saxo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by dieselgeek View Post
My amplitude is 212, beat error 0.1 to 0.4 and it's -6 a day on the wrist. Shows an avg of that on the timegraph as well. 2020 GMT II
You have timegrapher data for 5 different 3285 positions which you can post? What is the 2020 purchase date?
saxo3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 April 2022, 11:59 PM   #2316
dieselgeek
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Real Name: Ryan
Location: DFW
Watch: GMT II C Pepsi
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxo3 View Post
You have timegrapher data for 5 different 3285 positions which you can post? What is the 2020 purchase date?
I can do that, it was a late 2020 purchase. I'll throw it back on there today.
dieselgeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 April 2022, 12:37 AM   #2317
dieselgeek
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Real Name: Ryan
Location: DFW
Watch: GMT II C Pepsi
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxo3 View Post
You have timegrapher data for 5 different 3285 positions which you can post? What is the 2020 purchase date?

I took some photos. https://imgur.com/a/jOgSVkX



-6 209* .4ms
-5 200* .3ms
-4 199* 0.0ms
-5 211* .4ms
-5 200* .1ms
dieselgeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 April 2022, 12:46 AM   #2318
amanbra
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Real Name: Graham
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by dieselgeek View Post
I took some photos. https://imgur.com/a/jOgSVkX



-6 209* .4ms
-5 200* .3ms
-4 199* 0.0ms
-5 211* .4ms
-5 200* .1ms

Your timing is insanely consistent for the given position of the watch.

I assume the watch was full my wound for this test?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
amanbra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 April 2022, 12:58 AM   #2319
dieselgeek
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Real Name: Ryan
Location: DFW
Watch: GMT II C Pepsi
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by amanbra View Post
Your timing is insanely consistent for the given position of the watch.

I assume the watch was full my wound for this test?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wound it last night.
dieselgeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 April 2022, 01:40 AM   #2320
saxo3
"TRF" Member
 
saxo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,447
32xx movement problem poll and data thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by dieselgeek View Post
I took some photos. https://imgur.com/a/jOgSVkX



-6 209* .4ms
-5 200* .3ms
-4 199* 0.0ms
-5 211* .4ms
-5 200* .1ms


From your photos, I can see that your measurement results might be incorrect.

Your watch should be mounted on the timegrapher microphone assembly such that the crown is in contact with the microphone and not the opposite side.

In addition, you placed some kind of rather thick cotton band between the microphone and the watch case, probably to avoid scratches on the watch. This cotton band will attenuate the signal and might lead to wrong readings.

I suggest you rotate the watch by 180 degrees (crown in contact with microphone) and put a very thin tape on the crown to avoid scratches.
saxo3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 April 2022, 02:05 AM   #2321
dieselgeek
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Real Name: Ryan
Location: DFW
Watch: GMT II C Pepsi
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxo3 View Post


From your photos, I can see that your measurement results might be incorrect.

Your watch should be mounted on the timegrapher microphone assembly such that the crown is in contact with the microphone and not the opposite side.

In addition, you placed some kind of rather thick cotton band between the microphone and the watch case, probably to avoid scratches on the watch. This cotton band will attenuate the signal and might lead to wrong readings.

I suggest you rotate the watch by 180 degrees (crown in contact with microphone) and put a very thin tape on the crown to avoid scratches.


Here ya go

https://imgur.com/a/oNWPTps
dieselgeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 April 2022, 02:18 AM   #2322
saxo3
"TRF" Member
 
saxo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,447
32xx movement problem poll and data thread

Conclusion: 3285 from late 2020 with low amplitudes and negative rates after full winding -> ?
saxo3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 April 2022, 02:21 AM   #2323
dieselgeek
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Real Name: Ryan
Location: DFW
Watch: GMT II C Pepsi
Posts: 241
Yup, I was hoping an adjustment would fix it, but that low Amplitude is worrisome.
dieselgeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 April 2022, 05:17 AM   #2324
6120
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 84
Interesting thread, I was not aware of all these issues. I have a timegrapher and will check mine now.
6120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 April 2022, 05:22 AM   #2325
dannyp
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
Does five to ten minutes on the timegrapher give enough data? Took mine to AD to put on demagnetizer (in case that caused the small, but abrupt, slow-down). Watchmaker also ran timing test and was told all readings looked good (didn’t get specifics). Thought it took longer to get quality reading? Or not?
dannyp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 April 2022, 05:30 AM   #2326
saxo3
"TRF" Member
 
saxo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6120 View Post
Interesting thread, I was not aware of all these issues. I have a timegrapher and will check mine now.
A timegrapher measurement procedure you can find in this thread in posts #1425 and #771

https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...postcount=1425

https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...&postcount=771
saxo3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2022, 03:07 AM   #2327
Vince_76
2023 Pledge Member
 
Vince_76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 1,385
My 126334 is less than 2 years old. Was around -0.5 sec/day upon purchase, and now is at -2.0 sec/day. I anticipate it will get worse.

The big deal for me isn’t in the timekeeping in it of itself. These are mechanical watches and if you’re going for accuracy, you’re looking at the wrong product segment.

The issue is that Rolex advertises this movement within COSC standards, and it’s clear that there’s a systemic issue making this movement fall out of specs. Their failure to address a known, prolofic, issue is quite disappointing.
__________________
AP 15500ST (Silver) // ♛ Rolex 126334 (Blue Roman, Fluted, Jubilee) // Ω Moonswatch (Mission to Pluto) // G-Shock GA2100-1A1
Vince_76 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2022, 03:20 AM   #2328
dannyp
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vince_76 View Post
My 126334 is less than 2 years old. Was around -0.5 sec/day upon purchase, and now is at -2.0 sec/day. I anticipate it will get worse.

The big deal for me isnít in the timekeeping in it of itself. These are mechanical watches and if youíre going for accuracy, youíre looking at the wrong product segment.

The issue is that Rolex advertises this movement within COSC standards, and itís clear that thereís a systemic issue making this movement fall out of specs. Rolexís failure to address a prolific issue that theyíve been aware of is quite disappointing.
There's definitely an issue, but I don't think your description is quite accurate. It's not as though this is a movement that operates normally, but outside of Rolex/COSC standards. Those operating outside of those standards have a different flaw, causing abnormal wear on some watches. Those not experiencing the flaw run within spec (by and large), while those that are experiencing it are way, way off. It's not as though Rolex simply produced a movement that is outside of spec when operating normally. Somewhat different.
dannyp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2022, 03:31 AM   #2329
Vince_76
2023 Pledge Member
 
Vince_76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 1,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyp View Post
There's definitely an issue, but I don't think your description is quite accurate. It's not as though this is a movement that operates normally, but outside of Rolex/COSC standards. Those operating outside of those standards have a different flaw, causing abnormal wear on some watches. Those not experiencing the flaw run within spec (by and large), while those that are experiencing it are way, way off. It's not as though Rolex simply produced a movement that is outside of spec when operating normally. Somewhat different.
I never claimed that, at the point of production, the movement was outside of COSC specs. In fact, to the contrary, the movement was fine. My movement is still ďfineĒ per the COSC standards but I wouldnít be surprised if it falls out of specs (and it definitely is trending that way).

My point is this - Rolex knows of this systemic issue, and they havenít addressed it in a systemic manner. For a luxury company, to keep customers in the dark like this, is pretty disappointing. You know that Rolex knows about this issue. Yet, what have they done on a company-wide basis?
__________________
AP 15500ST (Silver) // ♛ Rolex 126334 (Blue Roman, Fluted, Jubilee) // Ω Moonswatch (Mission to Pluto) // G-Shock GA2100-1A1
Vince_76 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2022, 03:50 AM   #2330
saxo3
"TRF" Member
 
saxo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vince_76 View Post
Rolex knows of this systemic issue, and they haven’t addressed it in a systemic manner.
This is not correct …

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vince_76 View Post
For a luxury company, to keep customers in the dark like this, is pretty disappointing.
Agreed, but that's not a surprise and not Rolex specific.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vince_76 View Post
Yet, what have they done on a company-wide basis?
A lot …
saxo3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2022, 03:52 AM   #2331
TheVTCGuy
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Real Name: Paul
Location: San Diego
Watch: 126619LB
Posts: 21,548
Have you guys tried changing the watch battery?
TheVTCGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2022, 03:53 AM   #2332
dannyp
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxo3 View Post


A lot Ö
Do you know something regarding a permanent fix? Or just the various things that are done during service to try and remedy the problem on individual watches?
dannyp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2022, 03:57 AM   #2333
dannyp
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vince_76 View Post
I never claimed that, at the point of production, the movement was outside of COSC specs. In fact, to the contrary, the movement was fine. My movement is still “fine” per the COSC standards but I wouldn’t be surprised if it falls out of specs (and it definitely is trending that way).

My point is this - Rolex knows of this systemic issue, and they haven’t addressed it in a systemic manner. For a luxury company, to keep customers in the dark like this, is pretty disappointing. You know that Rolex knows about this issue. Yet, what have they done on a company-wide basis?
My point was that if these were technically functioning fine, but in constant need of regulation, that would be different than having what seems to be a single design flaw that degrades a specific part.

I'm sure Rolex is working on a permanent fix, and will implement it on all new watches. But if Rolex made an announcement, two things would happen:

1. It would lose face.
2. Half the owners out there would send their watch in, regardless of issues, to have it corrected.

What's important is that once a fix is recognized, Rolex extends (officially or unofficially) warranties indefinitely to fix watches that develop this particular issue after five years.
dannyp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2022, 04:06 AM   #2334
saxo3
"TRF" Member
 
saxo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,447
32xx movement problem poll and data thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy View Post
Have you guys tried changing the watch battery?
Yes, Rolex tried and it is their permanent fix Ö but don't tell your friends Ö wait until Charles comes back after 6 months to continue your timegrapher apprentice training.
saxo3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2022, 04:07 AM   #2335
Vince_76
2023 Pledge Member
 
Vince_76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 1,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxo3 View Post
This is not correct …


Agreed, but that's not a surprise and not Rolex specific.


A lot …
Such as…? As far as I’m aware it’s all one-off fixes primarily with lubrication. Am I missing something?

I refuse to believe RSC is so blind or has such poor data collection that they are not aware of an issue with the 3235.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyp View Post
My point was that if these were technically functioning fine, but in constant need of regulation, that would be different than having what seems to be a single design flaw that degrades a specific part.

I'm sure Rolex is working on a permanent fix, and will implement it on all new watches. But if Rolex made an announcement, two things would happen:

1. It would lose face.
2. Half the owners out there would send their watch in, regardless of issues, to have it corrected.

What's important is that once a fix is recognized, Rolex extends (officially or unofficially) warranties indefinitely to fix watches that develop this particular issue after five years.
Frankly, as a consumer, I don’t care about fixes on new iterations of the movement. I care about my watch.

And what you’re saying regarding an announcement is that Rolex puts its pride ahead of their customers. How is this any different than the early AirPod Pro defects that Apple not only extended the warranty for but issued statements about and provided free replacements as well? And I would hope that Rolex would cater more towards its customers given its luxury segmentation versus a company like Apple.

I agree they’re extending the warranty is a must. What Apple did as well.
__________________
AP 15500ST (Silver) // ♛ Rolex 126334 (Blue Roman, Fluted, Jubilee) // Ω Moonswatch (Mission to Pluto) // G-Shock GA2100-1A1
Vince_76 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2022, 04:26 AM   #2336
dannyp
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vince_76 View Post
Frankly, as a consumer, I donít care about fixes on new iterations of the movement. I care about my watch.

And what youíre saying regarding an announcement is that Rolex puts its pride ahead of their customers. How is this any different than the early AirPod Pro defects that Apple not only extended the warranty for but issued statements about and provided free replacements as well? And I would hope that Rolex would cater more towards its customers given its luxury segmentation versus a company like Apple.

I agree theyíre extending the warranty is a must. What Apple did as well.
1. As a fellow consumer, I agree entirely.
2. Rolex and Apple are in very different positions here. There are far more bloggers out there publicizing Apple issues, so there is no choice but to confront publicly.
dannyp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2022, 04:31 AM   #2337
Vince_76
2023 Pledge Member
 
Vince_76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 1,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyp View Post
1. As a fellow consumer, I agree entirely.
2. Rolex and Apple are in very different positions here. There are far more bloggers out there publicizing Apple issues, so there is no choice but to confront publicly.
That’s fair. I think it’s still in Rolex’s best interest to take a more comprehensive approach, even if it’s more under the radar. For example, what’s wrong with a note after returning the watch from RSC stating that they are aware of the issue and will reach back out when there is a more permanent fix with a complimentary service.
__________________
AP 15500ST (Silver) // ♛ Rolex 126334 (Blue Roman, Fluted, Jubilee) // Ω Moonswatch (Mission to Pluto) // G-Shock GA2100-1A1
Vince_76 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2022, 04:52 AM   #2338
Kevin of Larchmont
2023 Pledge Member
 
Kevin of Larchmont's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: The Doghouse
Watch: Ingersoll Mickey
Posts: 2,277
Frankly I’m disappointed that this issue hasn’t driven more owners away from Rolex and improved wait times at ADs.
Kevin of Larchmont is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2022, 05:55 AM   #2339
dannyp
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vince_76 View Post
Thatís fair. I think itís still in Rolexís best interest to take a more comprehensive approach, even if itís more under the radar. For example, whatís wrong with a note after returning the watch from RSC stating that they are aware of the issue and will reach back out when there is a more permanent fix with a complimentary service.
In this day and age, that's as much as public admission. What I think is more appropriate is to just comp the service if the watch fails again after the two year service warranty is up. Typically, though, repeat offenders tend to do so within two years. I recall this sort of thing with the 3186 movement and one of the parts controlling the 12hr hand. There was no announcement of a fix, just a directive to replace the part on any 3186 coming in for service.

And, frankly, it's possible there has already been a fix and we're simply unaware of it (though I would expect one of our resident RSC watchmakers to chime in with that).

Good news, for you, is that I don't hear of as many later 32xx movements and so far have seen virtually no reports of it on 36mm watches. But we'll see...
dannyp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2022, 07:42 AM   #2340
Dirt
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vince_76 View Post
Such asÖ? As far as Iím aware itís all one-off fixes primarily with lubrication. Am I missing something?

I refuse to believe RSC is so blind or has such poor data collection that they are not aware of an issue with the 3235.



Frankly, as a consumer, I donít care about fixes on new iterations of the movement. I care about my watch.

And what youíre saying regarding an announcement is that Rolex puts its pride ahead of their customers. How is this any different than the early AirPod Pro defects that Apple not only extended the warranty for but issued statements about and provided free replacements as well? And I would hope that Rolex would cater more towards its customers given its luxury segmentation versus a company like Apple.

I agree theyíre extending the warranty is a must. What Apple did as well.
Please don't go making comparisons with any Apple products or any other tech related product and high quality wristwatches.
One is disposable and in the same league as a Swatch watch as far as those of us who are "into" watches which are at the serious end of the spectrum.
I'm refering to watches which are for the want of a better expression "heirloom quality".
It's inconceivable for tech related products to last in a useful manner much beyond a decade or so.

Tech is superseded as soon as it's released.
We are accustomed to downloading updates, patches and lord knows what else just to keep it running, along with adding other software which needs to be updated to protect the crap.

If you are having difficulty discerning the fundamental differences, you're in the wrong place and effectively lost.

As far as the notion that Rolex should aim up to the issue in the same manner that a company like Apple would do is beyond fanciful. Rolex going down that path would virtually blow Rolex up from the inside.
Also the Swiss are in some ways pretty arrogant when it comes to watchmaking in that they believe their own longstanding propaganda and they think they know more about watchmaking than anyone else in the entire universe.
Foe example, when Daniels told them how to make a Co-axial work, they ignored him and went skiing off down the road in their own way. It wasn't until they work out that Daniels was right after some serious problems with the way they went about it.
Then they changed the Co-axial to work as he fundamentally intended and had originally work it out.
The Swiss haven't fully appreciated that virtually all the most notable horologists throughout history have been from other countries. Not to mention how the Japanese slapped them around quite a bit in concourses which motivated them to lift their game among other things
Dirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 6 (0 members and 6 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

DavidSW Watches


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





Copyright ©2004-2023, 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.