32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by BadgerDave

Hello all - longtime reader and lurker here. Many, many thanks to all for sharing their experience and insight. I'm here because I was considering a DJ36 with 3235. In reading through this extensive body of work I was struck by a comment from Dirt (post #3398): "Personally I think it's an obscure issue that's directly related to the escapement which i don't think Rolex understands." Along these lines, is there any chance this gremlin lives in the Parachrom hairspring? It sounds hellishly complicated to make according to a 2018 description posted in the Rolex newsroom, and requires no more than .2 microns deviation in 50 microns of thickness over 20 cm. length. Is it possible that some strange fatigue or memory develops in places slightly out of tolerance in it, or some other weirdness takes place? In other words, is the pursuit of 70 hrs just going beyond the limits of the material? Apologies if this is a stupid question (or discussed before) but I have only made it through about half the posts so far-

I is not a stupid question, but forget this speculation.

All reported problems, summarized in this thread (3161, 3182), yield to the same root cause of the main 32xx problem: migration of lubricants.

[BadgerDave]

Got it. Thanks so much for the reply. I looked those up and also did see the discussions around lubricant migration. If I understand the current state of play correctly, with this determination are we now at pursuing the "why" of this issue?

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by BadgerDave

Got it. Thanks so much for the reply. I looked those up and also did see the discussions around lubricant migration. If I understand the current state of play correctly, with this determination are we now at pursuing the "why" of this issue?

You are welcome.
The root cause is the origin and therefore the "why" of this issue.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by saxo3

You are welcome.
The root cause is the origin and therefore the "why" of this issue.

Have we arrived at a juncture where we can explore ideas and or theories among ourselves as to the whys or hows of the disappearing/displaced lube?
I would be happy to start to open discussion in this direction with my theory here in this thread if there is agreement
Perhaps the time is right?

[Andad]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Have we arrived at a juncture where we can explore ideas and or theories among ourselves as to the whys or hows of the disappearing/displaced lube?
I would be happy to start to open discussion in this direction with my theory here in this thread if there is agreement
Perhaps the time is right?

This is way overdue.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Have we arrived at a juncture where we can explore ideas and or theories among ourselves as to the whys or hows of the disappearing/displaced lube?
I would be happy to start to open discussion in this direction with my theory here in this thread if there is agreement
Perhaps the time is right?

You do not need to ask what you want to post in this thread. Go ahead, if you feel the need.

Consider the following: how does your theory about the migration of watch movement lubricants help anybody? You want to submit your thoughts to Rolex SA? LOL

Honestly, for some 32xx owners it seems much more interesting to find an 'easy' method to determine if his watch caliber has already started to develop the issue while it still delivers good timekeeping. By now, I know how to do that.

[csaltphoto]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Honestly, for some 32xx owners it seems much more interesting to find an 'easy' method to determine if his watch caliber has already started to develop the issue while it still delivers good timekeeping. By now, I know how to do that.

So what is the easy method? Loss of amplitude first before timekeeping deteriorates?

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by csaltphoto

So what is the easy method? Loss of amplitude first before timekeeping deteriorates?

Loss of amplitude (after full winding!) before time keeping deteriorates is not a method but my observation based on results of timegrapher and timekeeping measurements.

The main point is to understand how a 32xx caliber performs along a power reserve measurement.

One needs to look how fast the movement rates (accuracy) change with decreasing amplitudes. The key word is isochronism.

[dieselgeek]

So after 120 pages, It's hard to search. I did take mine in and they returned it to me running like a top, but now almost a year later the amplitude has degraded again.

They said if I had to bring it back it would need a full service.

Has anyone had this full service and does this fix the problem?

Thanks

[Annan]

I had two DJ41s, one bought new in 2016 and the second bought new in 2017. Both developed the problem. Both went off to RSC. Both are long gone because the problem was not fixed.

I don't know if a "full service" was done but am assuming so. The only feedback from RSC was a notation of "Check movement".

[whatsthetime?]

Wasn't the 32xx calibre introduced in 2020?

[Annan]

The DJ41 was introduced in 2016 but only in TT. In 2017 it was available in SS. Both of mine were TT and had the new 3235 movement.

[whatsthetime?]

Originally Posted by Annan

The DJ41 was introduced in 2016 but only in TT. In 2017 it was available in SS. Both of mine were TT and had the new 3235 movement.

I have to admit, following this thread I've always thought the 32xx came out in 2020, although I've seen a lot of members posting the same issue with their earlier years models, so I thought some (like yourself) were reporting the same issue with the 31xx. So what year and in what reference did Rolex start using the 32xx?

[Annan]

I dug a little deeper and found that Rolex first introduced the 3235 in the Pearlmaster, at Baselworld in 2015.

[whatsthetime?]

Originally Posted by Annan

I dug a little deeper and found that Rolex first introduced the 3235 in the Pearlmaster, at Baselworld in 2015.

Wow. I was way off with the introduction of the 32xx. I was probably confusing Rolex first using it in the 2020 Submariner.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by whatsthetime?

Wasn't the 32xx calibre introduced in 2020?

The introduction dates of all 32xx movements:
2015: 3235, 3255
2016: -
2017: -
2018: 3285
2019: -
2020: 3230

[Toshk]

Originally Posted by Annan

I had two DJ41s, one bought new in 2016 and the second bought new in 2017. Both developed the problem. Both went off to RSC. Both are long gone because the problem was not fixed.

I don't know if a "full service" was done but am assuming so. The only feedback from RSC was a notation of "Check movement".

They said a full service was completed on the one I sent in back in October last year. Came back working 4 seconds fast a day. When I took it back the second time they could not explain what exactly full service involved. After the second RSC procedure it was working at 1 second slow a day before I sold it.

Had an Explorer II for about a week recently. It was running about 1 second slow.

[whatsthetime?]

Originally Posted by saxo3

The introduction dates of all 32xx movements:
2015: 3235, 3255
2016: -
2017: -
2018: 3285
2019: -
2020: 3230

Thank you very much for this information. I had no idea the 32xx has been out for +/-8yrs.

[Toshk]

Originally Posted by whatsthetime?

Thank you very much for this information. I had no idea the 32xx has been out for +/-8yrs.

Just imagine the sheer level of problem if they still haven’t found a fix…

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by dieselgeek

Has anyone had this full service and does this fix the problem?

Thanks

There are loads of examples of this in posts throughout the Forum dating back a number of years.
That's why this thread was created in an attempt to establish the veracity of the issue and potentially get a handle on quantifying and establish a focal point for it through the collection of more credible data rather than a smattering of questions and complaints throughout the forum.

Some poor souls have had to send their watch in to Rolex for the exact same reason 3 times after a degradation in performance before eventually giving up on the whole thing and writing it off as a bad joke.
Some poor souls have also had multiple watches within their collection succumb to the issue multiple times and they are sworn off watches with this movement after having learnt their lesson.

The standard proceedure for Rolex Is to "service the movement" and as graciously outlined by experienced insiders, there is a well established process with regard to repairing the movement

[whatsthetime?]

Originally Posted by Toshk

Just imagine the sheer level of problem if they still haven’t found a fix…

I know.

[PekWatchGuy]

Is 9001 affected by this same issue. And if not...why?

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by vipereaper30

After reviewing this thread it seems like it would be a good idea to check out my current 32xx series watches, 4 w/3235 and 2 w/3285.

You measured the 2 GMT's (3285).
What about the other 4 watches (3235)?

[Omarion07]

Originally Posted by PekWatchGuy

Is 9001 affected by this same issue. And if not...why?

As far as I know the movements inside Skydwellers are not affected by the low amplitude issues as they have the same Swiss lever escapement as Cals 31xx and 41xx movements. It's only the movements with the "new" chronergy escapements that are affected. Other more knowledgeable members can correct me if I'm wrong.

This is a link to a website that explains the difference between traditional Swiss lever and Chronergy designs

https://watchesbysjx.com/2021/05/rol...-analysis.html

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by PekWatchGuy

Is 9001 affected by this same issue. And if not...why?

As you have noted, it's not the same series of movement so as far as anyone here knows, there's no problem like the one that generally affects the 32xx movement or no other problems of any magnitude with the Skydweller that we have heard about
Daytona owners can also rest easy with their movements

[PekWatchGuy]

Ok. Thank you for this info.

Originally Posted by Omarion07

As far as I know the movements inside Skydwellers are not affected by the low amplitude issues as they have the same Swiss lever escapement as Cals 31xx and 41xx movements. It's only the movements with the "new" chronergy escapements that are affected. Other more knowledgeable members can correct me if I'm wrong.

This is a link to a website that explains the difference between traditional Swiss lever and Chronergy designs

https://watchesbysjx.com/2021/05/rol...-analysis.html

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

[vipereaper30]

Originally Posted by saxo3

You measured the 2 GMT's (3285).
What about the other 4 watches (3235)?

Measured one sub compared to the last Gen and it was better than the GMTs. Haven't had a chance to check on the Datejusts yet.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by vipereaper30

Measured one sub compared to the last Gen and it was better than the GMTs. Haven't had a chance to check on the Datejusts yet.

You want to share the data?

A screenshot from the spreadsheet you had asked me for is ok but the Excel file would be easier ;-) Thanks P.

[Commander C.]

In a recent video regarding the drop in Rolex prices, Jenni Elle briefly mentioned that some consider the previous Explorer movement to be more durable than the current Explorer movement. So, perhaps the video/online content creators have started to take notice of the 32XX issues.

[padi56]

Well

Originally Posted by Commander C.

In a recent video regarding the drop in Rolex prices, Jenni Elle briefly mentioned that some consider the previous Explorer movement to be more durable than the current Explorer movement. So, perhaps the video/online content creators have started to take notice of the 32XX issues.

Well expect now there are around 2000000 plus 32 movements in this world today, and seeing that most all Rolex watches are hard to get even with the 32 movement inside. Ask yourself this if the 32 movement is so bad as some like to portray why do they still sell everyone they make.