32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[Seo]

Originally Posted by onyourbikes

But he has a Ukraine flag, so you know he is a superior being who should be worshiped for his outward display of virtue signalling.


As for the 32XX, I've head about the issue from enough people in passing that it must be fairly widespread and I am no longer interested in any new watches. I'm on the hunt for a few 31xx watches instead now.

It is strange why certain people don’t accept data. So many in this thread.

As for looking for 31xx watches I feel this is the wise thing to do. I was recently fortunately enough to get a current blnr. I immediately had it traded for a lnib 3186 Batman. This 6 year old watch is doing 310 amp dial and happily doing +3 a day.

Sorry for my English it is a second language.

[csaltphoto]

Originally Posted by Seo

It is strange why certain people don’t accept data. So many in this thread.

I don't get it either. Some people are so combative about it too. But with over a thousand people responding, that's enough to establish a trend. Is it a independent, double-blind survey with random sampling blah blah? No, certainly not. Self reporting is subject to it's own biases but we can't determine these with the existing data set (For example, one could determine with a questionnaire if people were more likely to report problems or more likely to report no problems with a Rolex. Generally there is a bias towards reporting problems with consumer items for obvious reasons but it could skew the other way for Rolex owners since they might not want to admit their 10K+ watch is not all that was hoped for. Just no way to determine here) So while the actual percentage of watches with problems can't be precisely determined, there are certainly enough with problems to suggest something in the area of 15-35%. It's definitely not made up or imaginary.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by csaltphoto

I don't get it either. Some people are so combative about it too. But with over a thousand people responding, that's enough to establish a trend. Is it a independent, double-blind survey with random sampling blah blah? No, certainly not. Self reporting is subject to it's own biases but we can't determine these with the existing data set (For example, one could determine with a questionnaire if people were more likely to report problems or more likely to report no problems with a Rolex. Generally there is a bias towards reporting problems with consumer items for obvious reasons but it could skew the other way for Rolex owners since they might not want to admit their 10K+ watch is not all that was hoped for. Just no way to determine here) So while the actual percentage of watches with problems can't be precisely determined, there are certainly enough with problems to suggest something in the area of 15-35%. It's definitely not made up or imaginary.

Agreed
Based upon what information we have been privy to, it's no implausible that there a good number of owners of these things that take notice of how well their watch is running and they are quietly turning to the mothership to make it right whether it be covered under warranty or not.
If the mothership can't put things right long term and it becomes untenable for the owners, the owners will either trade or sell the watch bepending on how much love they have for it, or maybe just stick it away somewhere after it eventually dies to be found whilst people are in the process of working through the owners estate.

Either way, they won't necessarily be telling too many people about it unless asked.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Easy E

My question is what is the point at which Rolex does declare the watch out of spec? I get that a watch may be -4 spd and +2/-2 in 5 positions of some period of time (say 24 hrs). So with that, assuming I understand this correctly, +2-2 from -4 spd could put you reading -6 spd somewhere in the allotted time period. Is this correct.? If yes, does your actual spd have to hit +9/-7 to be considered out of spec? Is there even an actual guarantee on accuracy?

You are way over thinking this.

Rolex advertise +2/-2 spd. There are no legal definitions, caveats, disclaimers or anything else about how that number is derived. Consumers therefore (in the UK at least as that's the law I'm familiar with) can reasonably expect their watch to operate within the parameters of either losing or gaining 2 seconds per day. Not operating within +2/-2 of a consistent loss or gain of however many seconds per day.

If I set my (up to 5 year old) watch at 1pm today to the exact time and its more than 2 seconds fast or slow by 1pm tomorrow using that same exact time reference its not operating within the spec Rolex say it will in their publicly promoted marketing information and I have a right to expect Rolex to address that under warranty.

Now, we all know that mechanical timepieces are subject to many different environmental factors, temperature, age of components, positioning, power reserve, wearing habits, etc, etc that can (and will) impact timekeeping, but the average consumer is not expected to know that and can, in law, simply expect their watch to perform as advertised.

Incidentally we also need to drop the whole precision versus accuracy point as far as Rolex’s advertising statement is concerned

Precision is literally defined as

“the quality, condition, or fact of being exact and accurate”

So there’s no difference from the legal perspective of interpretation of Rolex advertising.

I believe the laws are very similar throughout Europe. The rest of the world may of course differ.

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by Devildog

You are way over thinking this.

Rolex advertise +2/-2 spd. There are no legal definitions, caveats, disclaimers or anything else about how that number is derived. Consumers therefore (in the UK at least as that's the law I'm familiar with) can reasonably expect their watch to operate within the parameters of either losing or gaining 2 seconds per day. Not operating within +2/-2 of a consistent loss or gain of however many seconds per day.

If I set my (up to 5 year old) watch at 1pm today to the exact time and its more than 2 seconds fast or slow by 1pm tomorrow using that same exact time reference its not operating within the spec Rolex say it will in their publicly promoted marketing information and I have a right to expect Rolex to address that under warranty.

Now, we all know that mechanical timepieces are subject to many different environmental factors, temperature, age of components, positioning, power reserve, wearing habits, etc, etc that can (and will) impact timekeeping, but the average consumer is not expected to know that and can, in law, simply expect their watch to perform as advertised.

Incidentally we also need to drop the whole precision versus accuracy point as far as Rolex’s advertising statement is concerned

Precision is literally defined as

“the quality, condition, or fact of being exact and accurate”

So there’s no difference from the legal perspective of interpretation of Rolex advertising.

I believe the laws are very similar throughout Europe. The rest of the world may of course differ.

This is correct.

Any time I've ever told a Rolex AD watchmaker that my watch was -3 or -4 spd they scowled and asked for a pic, I show them my watchtracker plot, and then they take it back to regulate it. 3-4 min job.

They expect it to hold the 2 second window. They make no fuss about adjusting it to meet that. There's not accuracy / precision discussion going on. A clock necessarily must be precise to hold a preset accuracy.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by EEpro

This is correct.

Any time I've ever told a Rolex AD watchmaker that my watch was -3 or -4 spd they scowled and asked for a pic, I show them my watchtracker plot, and then they take it back to regulate it. 3-4 min job.

They expect it to hold the 2 second window. They make no fuss about adjusting it to meet that. There's not accuracy / precision discussion going on. A clock necessarily must be precise to hold a preset accuracy.

The accuracy target is the intent.
Rolex has historically always adhered to this principal whether it be COSC or the Superlative standard.
Actually my experience is that Rolex will usually aim for the best possible accuracy when requested, even in the COSC days they were regulating their Chronometer movements to better the Superlative standard for years.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Easy E

My question is what is the point at which Rolex does declare the watch out of spec? I get that a watch may be -4 spd and +2/-2 in 5 positions of some period of time (say 24 hrs). So with that, assuming I understand this correctly, +2-2 from -4 spd could put you reading -6 spd somewhere in the allotted time period. Is this correct.? If yes, does your actual spd have to hit +9/-7 to be considered out of spec? Is there even an actual guarantee on accuracy?

I think it's been answered on numerous occasions within this thread.
The answer is the criterior that Rolex applies is they will look at the amplitude after they can verify the accuracy is not in accordance with the the Superlative standard.
Having said that, it has been reported by diligent owners that they have had watches with the 32xx movement which were running well but didn't have adequate amplitude and Rolex serviced the watch because it didn't meet the specs.
The amplitude doesn't miraculously improve. It is always destined to decline and can only be restored by a full movement service.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Dirt

I think it's been answered on numerous occasions within this thread.

https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...postcount=3397

[Bizcut1]

Originally Posted by saxo3

No surprise. This guy is not worth to read his hater nonsense or reply to. None of his 7 posts here have any tiny content. JMO

C'mon, guys...no hate here.

Just a little levity at the smug self-righteousness.

Carry on,

Ben

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by EEpro

This is correct.

Any time I've ever told a Rolex AD watchmaker that my watch was -3 or -4 spd they scowled and asked for a pic, I show them my watchtracker plot, and then they take it back to regulate it. 3-4 min job.

They expect it to hold the 2 second window. They make no fuss about adjusting it to meet that. There's not accuracy / precision discussion going on. A clock necessarily must be precise to hold a preset accuracy.

Originally Posted by Dirt

The accuracy target is the intent.
Rolex has historically always adhered to this principal whether it be COSC or the Superlative standard.
Actually my experience is that Rolex will usually aim for the best possible accuracy when requested, even in the COSC days they were regulating their Chronometer movements to better the Superlative standard for years.

[Seo]

Originally Posted by Devildog

You are way over thinking this.

Rolex advertise +2/-2 spd. There are no legal definitions, caveats, disclaimers or anything else about how that number is derived. Consumers therefore (in the UK at least as that's the law I'm familiar with) can reasonably expect their watch to operate within the parameters of either losing or gaining 2 seconds per day. Not operating within +2/-2 of a consistent loss or gain of however many seconds per day.

If I set my (up to 5 year old) watch at 1pm today to the exact time and its more than 2 seconds fast or slow by 1pm tomorrow using that same exact time reference its not operating within the spec Rolex say it will in their publicly promoted marketing information and I have a right to expect Rolex to address that under warranty.

Now, we all know that mechanical timepieces are subject to many different environmental factors, temperature, age of components, positioning, power reserve, wearing habits, etc, etc that can (and will) impact timekeeping, but the average consumer is not expected to know that and can, in law, simply expect their watch to perform as advertised.

Incidentally we also need to drop the whole precision versus accuracy point as far as Rolex’s advertising statement is concerned

Precision is literally defined as

“the quality, condition, or fact of being exact and accurate”

So there’s no difference from the legal perspective of interpretation of Rolex advertising.

I believe the laws are very similar throughout Europe. The rest of the world may of course differ.

Yes I agree, I posted earlier about the same thing. Not once did rsc point to this definition discussion when I spoke to them about problematic timekeeping.

[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.

Any news?
Does your collection contain 2022 watches with 3235 or 3285 movements?

[atxwatch]

Is anyone aware of the 22xx movements in the OPs (that were first used in 2020) to have the same issues as the 32xx movements?

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by atxwatch

Is anyone aware of the 22xx movements in the OPs (that were first used in 2020) to have the same issues as the 32xx movements?

I am NOT aware of any problems.

My wife has a watch with a 2235 (Base movement 2230) movement.

Its NOT the best timekeeper on the world by any means but It does NOT have the 32xx problem and shows no signs of having a similar problem.

[atxwatch]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

I am NOT aware of any problems.

My wife has a watch with a 2235 (Base movement 2230) movement.

Its NOT the best timekeeper on the world by any means but It does NOT have the 32xx problem and shows no signs of having a similar problem.

My wife has an OP with the 2232 movement. Losing anywhere between 20secs and 60secs a day. No history of violent wear or shocks. It did have to go through metal detectors while traveling recently.

My best guess is that it is magnetized or the movement is off. Taking it to AD on Saturday to have them put it on the timegrapher...will report back.

Only reason I posted this here is that the 2232 movement is new (introduced in 2020), so I was wondering if some of the 32xx issues may have crept in the 2232. I will be curious to see the amplitude numbers on Saturday.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by atxwatch

Taking it to AD on Saturday to have them put it on the timegrapher...will report back.
…..
I will be curious to see the amplitude numbers on Saturday.

That will be interesting.
Please ask the AD for the timegrapher printout.

[RFC]

The 3235 on my Sub 124060 tested in 5 positions on a Weishi 1000 the day after being fully wound and having rested overnight dial up was x -1.6 with a delta of 4 (between a range of 0 s/day DU and -4 s/day CD). Average amplitude was 238 and beat error between .1 to .3. Running a tad slow but precise and within spec. What's the accuracy of the Weishi it's anyone's guess, but these results are spot on to observed performance on a daily basis. I'm guessing that the lower amplitude readings are a compromise to achieve a greater power reserve.

[atxwatch]

Originally Posted by saxo3

That will be interesting.
Please ask the AD for the timegrapher printout.

Will do.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by RFC

The 3235 on my Sub 124060 tested in 5 positions on a Weishi 1000 the day after being fully wound and having rested overnight dial up was x -1.6 with a delta of 4 (between a range of 0 s/day DU and -4 s/day CD). Average amplitude was 238 and beat error between .1 to .3.

I don't understand what can we learn form that? What are the timegrapher data after full winding?

Originally Posted by RFC

Running a tad slow but precise and within spec.

What do you mean?

Originally Posted by RFC

I'm guessing that the lower amplitude readings are a compromise to achieve a greater power reserve.

What are the amplitudes and rates after full winding and 24 hours later? These two timegrapher measurements (5 positions) provide an idea how healthy the 3230 movement is.

Btw, your Submariner Ref. 124060 has a 3230 and not a 3235 caliber installed

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by atxwatch

Will do.

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by RFC

What's the accuracy of the Weishi it's anyone's guess, .

I have BOTH a Weishi 1900 and a Witschi.

I am happy to say that the Weishi is very accurate and agrees with the Witschi with it's results.

The Weishi is therfore a bargain and can be highly recommended.

[atxwatch]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Of course I did not manage to get the print out , but I was not there long enough anyway. They took the OP and put it on the timegrapher (12 hours from full wind) and it read amplitude between 90-110 in DU position. Watchmaker then fully wound it AND demagnetizedit and amplitude remained roughly the same. I did not stick around for tests in the other dial positions.

The TG showed the timing jumping from plus to minus erratically.

Movement is definitely off. They are opening it on Monday to see if anything obvious and easy to fix jumps out, but I suspect it is going to RSC in Dallas.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by atxwatch

Of course I did not manage to get the print out , but I was not there long enough anyway. They took the OP and put it on the timegrapher (12 hours from full wind) and it read amplitude between 90-110 in DU position. Watchmaker then fully wound it AND demagnetizedit and amplitude remained roughly the same. I did not stick around for tests in the other dial positions.

The TG showed the timing jumping from plus to minus erratically.

Movement is definitely off. They are opening it on Monday to see if anything obvious and easy to fix jumps out, but I suspect it is going to RSC in Dallas.

Thanks for the update. Yes, this 2232 movement, unveiled in 2020, is totally sick.

How old is this OP? Bought new or preowned? You have the Rolex 5 year guarantee card?

A private 200 $ timegrapher is very useful, so no need for silly AD games.

[atxwatch]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Thanks for the update. Yes, this 2232 movement, unveiled in 2020, is totally sick.

How old is this OP? Bought new or preowned? You have the Rolex 5 year guarantee card?

A private 200 $ timegrapher is very useful, so no need for silly AD games.

OP was bought in April 2022 new from AD at MSRP. I had been on the waitlist for it, so bought it the day after it came in to the AD. So less than one year old for sure. I therefore bought full set with box and papers and 5 year warranty.

AD is awesome and I trust that Rolex will make it right. But yeah movement is sick.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by atxwatch

OP was bought in April 2022 new from AD at MSRP. I had been on the waitlist for it, so bought it the day after it came in to the AD. So less than one year old for sure. I therefore bought full set with box and papers and 5 year warranty.

AD is awesome and I trust that Rolex will make it right. But yeah movement is sick.

A Rolex OP sold in April 2022, which (only 9 months later) has amplitude values of about 100 degrees after full winding? Are you sure?

How often was this watch running? Daily worn, frequently worn, rarely worn, unworn?

[atxwatch]

Originally Posted by saxo3

A Rolex OP sold in April 2022, which (only 9 months later) has amplitude values of about 100 degrees after full winding? Are you sure?

How often was this watch running? Daily worn, frequently worn, rarely worn, unworn?

100% sure. I watched the watchmaker put it on and saw the measurements myself. Watch was worn every day during the daytime and left DU at night. Only time my wife didn't wear it was a 5 day trip to Seattle in the fall. Otherwise, she wore it every day all day.

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by atxwatch

OP was bought in April 2022 new from AD at MSRP. I had been on the waitlist for it, so bought it the day after it came in to the AD. So less than one year old for sure. I therefore bought full set with box and papers and 5 year warranty.

AD is awesome and I trust that Rolex will make it right. But yeah movement is sick.

Was the watch ever dropped?

[atxwatch]

Originally Posted by Easy E

Was the watch ever dropped?

My wife says no. I obviously asked. And while the watch has scuffs on the bracelet, I saw nothing that would support a drop. No Dents, dings, gouges, etc.