Rotor differences in "new" 32xx caliber?

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by dannyp

What's so perplexing about the whole thing is comparing the 32xx specs to those of the Tudor MT5xxx. This line has managed to achieve every performance feat boasted of the 32xx (ok, -2/+4 on timekeeping tolerance...), it beats at 4hz, and it fits into smaller watches (BB36, BB54). And, though the series has had some minor issues, they're more akin to the 3186 click spring issues than the 32xx. Makes one wonder...

At least it makes me wonder if my next watch won't indeed be a Tudor.

My bb58 is an insanely accurate watch. And durable goes everywhere





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by dannyp

What's so perplexing about the whole thing is comparing the 32xx specs to those of the Tudor MT5xxx. This line has managed to achieve every performance feat boasted of the 32xx (ok, -2/+4 on timekeeping tolerance...), it beats at 4hz, and it fits into smaller watches (BB36, BB54). And, though the series has had some minor issues, they're more akin to the 3186 click spring issues than the 32xx. Makes one wonder...

At least it makes me wonder if my next watch won't indeed be a Tudor.

Both my ETA-powered Tudor BB and Heritage Ranger are still keeping COSC time and 300+ full-wind amplitude with zero beat error after a decade with no service.

[wm82]

Tudor/Kenessa movement's had some troubles as well. Loose impulse stones for one. Also finishing is nowhere near Rolex. And movement is replaced with a refurbished one during "service". Dont make the mistake of thinking a Tudor is a Rolex.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by wm82

Tudor/Kenessa movement's had some troubles as well. Loose impulse stones for one. Also finishing is nowhere near Rolex. And movement is replaced with a refurbished one during "service". Dont make the mistake of thinking a Tudor is a Rolex.

Yeah, but I think the issue is worse for Rolex. The entire point of buying a Rolex sport watch over the decades was that, while it may not have the finishing of the higher end brands, at least we knew that the movement was relatively bomb-proof for a decade’ish of wear from the beaches to the boardroom.

I fear we’re seeing the brand transition from old Land Rover to new Land Rover, but I have hope they’ll rectify things with a future 33xx.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by wm82

Tudor/Kenessa movement's had some troubles as well. Loose impulse stones for one. Also finishing is nowhere near Rolex. And movement is replaced with a refurbished one during "service". Dont make the mistake of thinking a Tudor is a Rolex.

But that's not the point. The point is that Tudor was able to accomplish the same performance (accuracy, PR) within the same constraints (use in a 36mm case) as Rolex without the systemic issues (Tudor's were much more readily identified and correctable).

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Yeah, but I think the issue is worse for Rolex. The entire point of buying a Rolex sport watch over the decades was that, while it may not have the finishing of the higher end brands, at least we knew that the movement was relatively bomb-proof for a decade’ish of wear from the beaches to the boardroom.

I fear we’re seeing the brand transition from old Land Rover to new Land Rover, but I have hope they’ll rectify things with a future 33xx.

Exactly. Hence my pondering in another thread that as Rolex moves upmarket we're going to see "upmarket finickiness" in Rolexes that might otherwise be brushed off (in the name of art/pushing R&D limits, etc.) with other brands.

[KatGirl]

Originally Posted by GGGMT

My bb58 is an insanely accurate watch. And durable goes everywhere





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My 2 year old BB58 is near perfect, in every metric, on my Timegrapher, as well.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by KatGirl

My 2 year old BB58 is near perfect, in every metric, on my Timegrapher, as well.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Such insane value for the money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KatGirl]

Originally Posted by GGGMT

Such insane value for the money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly what I said, in another thread about Tudor watches, in general. They also look and feel very nice on the wrist, even if fit and finish is not quite up to Rolex standards.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by KatGirl

Exactly what I said, in another thread about Tudor watches, in general. They also look and feel very nice on the wrist, even if fit and finish is not quite up to Rolex standards.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well said and Totally concur Kat!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Subshark1861]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca

Maybe next summer.

I've already told you, the new factory is specifically for the 33XX movement.

[Subshark1861]

The only sticking point for me with Tudor is the snowflake hand. I just can't love it.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by KatGirl

Exactly what I said, in another thread about Tudor watches, in general. They also look and feel very nice on the wrist, even if fit and finish is not quite up to Rolex standards.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Arguably with some of the QC disasters that have surfaced Tudor's fit and finish is better

[boring_sandwich]

Curious to know if the Calibre 2232 also has the same known issues as the Calibre 32xx?

[EmpireCity]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...postcount=4122

This was a great read, thanks!

[ganagati]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Doesn't explain why I'm doing complete service on 1 year old or younger 32 series movements, all week long.

Because let me tell you, the other movements rarely come in for a warranty service at all.

Are you able to describe what the fix is?

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by ganagati

Are you able to describe what the fix is?

It can be a fairly routine fix or as Bas has intimated, it can become protracted with the changing of parts that would generally be deemed to be serviceable, in the hope of eliminating an issue just so the watchmaker can get the movement to run to the official specs.
Other than the scope of work being officially described as "service movement", there is no one size fits all fix.
Rolex doesn't even know how to correct these issues.

As one can imagine this would be a very frustrating process for a watchmaker when all things are considered.

[CedCraig]

Originally Posted by njlam

is a 33xx movement in the works? Any ETA?

Yes, a friend of a friend who knows a guy who knows a guy said Rolex reached out to ETA for help with a fix to the 32xx problems and with design of the 33xx. Remember that Rolex SA had never designed a movement itself until the 32xx series and we know how that‘s turning out.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Dirt

It can be a fairly routine fix or as Bas has intimated, it can become protracted with the changing of parts that would generally be deemed to be serviceable, in the hope of eliminating an issue just so the watchmaker can get the movement to run to the official specs.
Other than the scope of work being officially described as "service movement", there is no one size fits all fix.
Rolex doesn't even know how to correct these issues.

As one can imagine this would be a very frustrating process for a watchmaker when all things are considered.

Another thought comes to mind as well: Perhaps the long-term performance of this movement, more than previous Rolex movements, is dependent on the last hands to touch it. That's not a flaw in and of itself when you make 20-50,000 watches per year, but when you make a million...

Once again, it wouldn't surprise me if Rolex has already made the decision to "just get them back up and running" for now, that movements will be swapped out once the next generation is available, and the receipts will simply say "replace movement" without further explanation.

[ganagati]

Originally Posted by Dirt

It can be a fairly routine fix or as Bas has intimated, it can become protracted with the changing of parts that would generally be deemed to be serviceable, in the hope of eliminating an issue just so the watchmaker can get the movement to run to the official specs.
Other than the scope of work being officially described as "service movement", there is no one size fits all fix.
Rolex doesn't even know how to correct these issues.

As one can imagine this would be a very frustrating process for a watchmaker when all things are considered.

Thanks for the quick reply!

What I was really trying to tease out was whether or not they had a solid fix for it yet. As somebody who works at a company that designs and manufactures complex systems, I look at this situation through a lense similar to the one I’d approach problems at in my office.

Firstly, as closed lipped as Rolex tends to be, I was curious about how much could even be shared. Not having officially acknowledged an issue (as far as I’m aware), that could put Bas in a spot where he simply can’t divulge much.

In addition to that, though, doing 5 services each week…I’m curious it’s a standard service, or if they’ve been able to identify specific areas that need fixing. I suppose it wouldn’t matter; the movement number is the movement number, and regardless of known corrections to the seemingly acknowledged issue, the movement will leave his hands with the same config controlled parts…

From there, I suppose it’s more speculation, but if even the watchmakers are recognizing it, the whole internet debate thing is pretty much settled, and the question shifts to more the point of the original post of this thread….what causes it, and as an extension of that, how likely is it that more will succumb to the issue over longer periods of time?

[ganagati]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Another thought comes to mind as well: Perhaps the long-term performance of this movement, more than previous Rolex movements, is dependent on the last hands to touch it. That's not a flaw in and of itself when you make 20-50,000 watches per year, but when you make a million...

Once again, it wouldn't surprise me if Rolex has already made the decision to "just get them back up and running" for now, that movements will be swapped out once the next generation is available, and the receipts will simply say "replace movement" without further explanation.

Exactly my thoughts. If the issue is truly as the OP of this thread speculates, it would seem that the issue could be much more widespread…. Of course there’s a big PR element in how to handle that, but at the end of the day they’ll need to get their watches working.

[wm82]

Originally Posted by boring_sandwich

Curious to know if the Calibre 2232 also has the same known issues as the Calibre 32xx?

Nope. Completely different movements.

2236 n 2232 are evolutions on 2230 n 2235, with syloxi hairsprings and longer Mainspring.

[amh]

Originally Posted by Dirt

It can be a fairly routine fix or as Bas has intimated, it can become protracted with the changing of parts that would generally be deemed to be serviceable, in the hope of eliminating an issue just so the watchmaker can get the movement to run to the official specs.
Other than the scope of work being officially described as "service movement", there is no one size fits all fix.
Rolex doesn't even know how to correct these issues.

As one can imagine this would be a very frustrating process for a watchmaker when all things are considered.

Pure speculation. Also flawed - it would be akin to saying "Apple has found a large security hole in their iphone operating system and has no idea how to fix it!" Of course they know how to fix it, they're the manufacturer with Billions of dollars to throw at the problem! If anyone can fix this it's Rolex.

No they haven't issued a giant 'recall' of all 32xx movements but likely that's only because it's better from their perspective:
- They never say anything regardless of the situation, a recall would be an admission of sorts
- Allowing repair as needed is likely more cost effective
- The fix will be introduced during manufacturing

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by amh

Pure speculation. Also flawed - it would be akin to saying "Apple has found a large security hole in their iphone operating system and has no idea how to fix it!" Of course they know how to fix it, they're the manufacturer with Billions of dollars to throw at the problem! If anyone can fix this it's Rolex.

No they haven't issued a giant 'recall' of all 32xx movements but likely that's only because it's better from their perspective:
- They never say anything regardless of the situation, a recall would be an admission of sorts
- Allowing repair as needed is likely more cost effective
- The fix will be introduced during manufacturing

Your second paragraph is obviously the most plausible explanation of they are managing the situation.
However, your first paragraph misses the mark in one key and indisputable aspect.
That is the fact that Bas has said himself, there is no fix for the problem.
This has been going on for years with no end in sight in the classic sense and it makes an outright mockery of the notion of the often touted 10 year service intervals unless one is inclined to ignorantly or recklessly drive something into the ground.

I fear the legendary Rolex movement reliability and ease to work on is at an end.
They don't make them like they used to.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by amh

Pure speculation. Also flawed - it would be akin to saying "Apple has found a large security hole in their iphone operating system and has no idea how to fix it!" Of course they know how to fix it, they're the manufacturer with Billions of dollars to throw at the problem! If anyone can fix this it's Rolex.

No they haven't issued a giant 'recall' of all 32xx movements but likely that's only because it's better from their perspective:
- They never say anything regardless of the situation, a recall would be an admission of sorts
- Allowing repair as needed is likely more cost effective
- The fix will be introduced during manufacturing

Originally Posted by Dirt

Your second paragraph is obviously the most plausible explanation of they are managing the situation.
However, your first paragraph misses the mark in one key and indisputable aspect.
That is the fact that Bas has said himself, there is no fix for the problem.
This has been going on for years with no end in sight in the classic sense and it makes an outright mockery of the notion of the often touted 10 year service intervals unless one is inclined to ignorantly or recklessly drive something into the ground.

I fear the legendary Rolex movement reliability and ease to work on is at an end.
They don't make them like they used to.

The other reason there will never be a recall is because there is no imperative to issue one. It's not like an Apple security hole, where untold damage could occur from its exploitation. It's a luxury watch.

On the latter point, I think it's important to consider the nuances. Per Bas, there has been no "fix" implemented during movement servicing. That doesn't mean there have not been changes to the parts fabrication process (that still leaves part numbers and appearance unchanged), nor a change to the actual initial manufacturing process. Those could theoretically happen without RSC watchmakers being informed, because their protocols are unchanged.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by dannyp

The other reason there will never be a recall is because there is no imperative to issue one. It's not like an Apple security hole, where untold damage could occur from its exploitation. It's a luxury watch.

On the latter point, I think it's important to consider the nuances. Per Bas, there has been no "fix" implemented during movement servicing. That doesn't mean there have not been changes to the parts fabrication process (that still leaves part numbers and appearance unchanged), nor a change to the actual initial manufacturing process. Those could theoretically happen without RSC watchmakers being informed, because their protocols are unchanged.

Quite right
It's another of the key reasons why i understand why "the 32xx poll" was implimented.
Otherwise we have no central point to gather sufficient information in order to ascertain if a fix has been applied and verified by a downward trend to a point of genuine statistical insignificance.
There are many here on the forum who are hoping for a positive resolution.
Mostly for the current owners who are invested(financially) and or care, and for the brand a lot of us have come to admire in some capacity.
On a personal note, I still have hopes of picking up that DJ41 I like so very much(except for that movement lurking within)

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Quite right
It's another of the key reasons why i understand why "the 32xx poll" was implimented.
Otherwise we have no central point to gather sufficient information in order to ascertain if a fix has been applied and verified by a downward trend to a point of genuine statistical insignificance.
There are many here on the forum who are hoping for a positive resolution.
Mostly for the current owners who are invested(financially) and or care, and for the brand a lot of us have come to admire in some capacity.
On a personal note, I still have hopes of picking up that DJ41 I like so very much(except for that movement lurking within)

In reality, someone should redo that poll, but as a spreadsheet where one enters:

Date of purchase
Date or warranty card (if different)
Time loss Y/N
Mo/Yr time loss began (if Y)
Low amplitude Y/N/unknown
Mo/Yr amplitude dropped (if Y)

Ideally, there would be a second tab where time/amp columns would be the same but it would be for serviced watches.

[amh]

Originally Posted by dannyp

In reality, someone should redo that poll, but as a spreadsheet where one enters:

Date of purchase
Date or warranty card (if different)
Time loss Y/N
Mo/Yr time loss began (if Y)
Low amplitude Y/N/unknown
Mo/Yr amplitude dropped (if Y)

Ideally, there would be a second tab where time/amp columns would be the same but it would be for serviced watches.

Good idea. Stacking results upon the old poll just makes matters worse.