Latest 3235 movement update?

[Auto16610]

I recently purchased a new 126610lv and was reading some past posts about these movements slowing down due to non oil ect with certain parts. People send them in then later same problem occurs. Should I be worried or is this just blown out of proportion? Thanks in advance and please don't flame me. I am just asking!

[brandrea]

You’ll get links to the 32xx movement thread here on TRF in 3-2-1 …..

Some will tell you that the new series of movements are horrible and they’d never own a Rolex post 2015.

Others like me, who don’t place as much of a premium on timekeeping to the exact +2, -2 specs will tell you that they are fine.

Personally, the aesthetic upgrades to the new Submariner line outweigh any timekeeping issues. Of course I’ll get flamed by the usual suspects for this stance, and that’s ok.

Enjoy your LVC, it’s beautiful

[Auto16610]

I don't worry about time keeping if it's 5 or 6 seconds. It's the -30 a day that would be terrible. Also if there is no fix and it comes back fine just to go bad again that would be bad.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Auto16610

I don't worry about time keeping if it's 5 or 6 seconds. It's the -30 a day that would be terrible. Also if there is no fix and it comes back fine just to go bad again that would be bad.

There in lies the rub as they say.

I’ve not experienced that level of erratic timekeeping on any of my 32xx movements (I own 3 of them) with the 2017, 126600 being my oldest.

To be perfectly clear, I rotate my watches every few days so I’m not sure I’d notice. I have worn my 2018, 126710 blro on several extended vacations as a one watch. It’s been fine, but again honestly, I wouldn’t notice if it had gained or lost a few minutes in a two / three week period….

That said, if you’re worried about it your default position is the 5 year warranty and 2 year after service warranty.

If that’s not adequate, it sounds like 31xx references will be better for you

[Auto16610]

I don't know if worried. Concerned, curious, wondering. Just posted to see if any breaking news. Love my LV. Love Rolex.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by Auto16610

I don't know if worried. Concerned, curious, wondering. Just posted to see if any breaking news. Love my LV. Love Rolex.

There likely won't ever be anything which counts as breaking news. Even if Rolex makes a change and institutes a permanent fix, they certainly won't be making it public. It would go unspoken and your watch would simply be "serviced" and that's that. Even if they told you precisely which parts they replaced, they'd be very unlikely to mention "oh, and that's v2 of the pinion, we found the tolerances were a bit too tight previously". Watchmakers at RSC may get such details, but they are under NDA to not make such things public.

The actual problem, if it hits your specific watch, will be impossible to ignore. Any comments like "I don't care about 1 second" are either disingenuous or ignorant. None of the "concerned" parties care about 1 or 2 seconds a day. Rather, when this particular issue comes up you'll go from perfect timekeeping to -10 per day. Then -30 per day.

I have two watches, both produced in the last two years. Each keeps near perfect time when fully wound. One has 20 degrees more amplitude and not surprisingly, also keeps good time throughout the entire power reserve. The low amplitude one gets real sketchy (in seconds/day and amplitude) after about 24 hours of power reserve is used. I average wearing it about 2 days per month and in 18 months time its timings have already gotten worse. I won't send it in until I'm either close to the 5 year mark, or, the first 24 hour timing drops off too.

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by brandrea

Others like me, who don’t place as much of a premium on timekeeping to the exact +2, -2 specs will tell you that they are fine.

Hey Brian overall your position makes sense but I don't think this part is right.

For me for instance I have speedies running at +12s per day, doesn't bother me in the slightest, but when the 32xx issue hits it's really bad. For instance my DJ i take it off Friday after work Monday morning it will be like 2 mins slow... it gets super slow and then crazy slow as the PR drops off...

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by amanbra

Hey Brian overall your position makes sense but I don't think this part is right.

For me for instance I have speedies running at +12s per day, doesn't bother me in the slightest, but when the 32xx issue hits it's really bad. For instance my DJ i take it off Friday after work Monday morning it will be like 2 mins slow... it gets super slow and then crazy slow as the PR drops off...

I agree, what you’re siting is not acceptable.

I guess I’ve read everything from a few seconds to more erratic examples as in yours. I’ve just never been fixated on exact time keeping.

I have a Seiko Skx that runs about 20 seconds a day fast. My brand new Ed White 321 is about 10. Granted I don’t have sophisticated timeographer equipment etc, that’s just by eyeballing the timeis website.

Again, some folks place a premium on time running within exact specs. Some are happy as long as a watch runs consistently (that’s more me). To each their own I guess

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by brandrea

I agree, what you’re siting is not acceptable.

I guess I’ve read everything from a few seconds to more erratic examples as in yours. I’ve just never been fixated on exact time keeping.

I have a Seiko Skx that runs about 20 seconds a day fast. My brand new Ed White 321 is about 10. Granted I don’t have sophisticated timeographer equipment etc, that’s just by eyeballing the timeis website.

Again, some folks place a premium on time running within exact specs. Some are happy as long as a watch runs consistently (that’s more me). To each their own I guess

yeah isn't that funny about the 321 lol, yeah mine is +12, part of the old school charm of it.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by amanbra

yeah isn't that funny about the 321 lol, yeah mine is +12, part of the old school charm of it.

Exactly. Imperfectly perfect

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[joli160]

Just use your phone to track the time, much more accurate.

I knew of the problems with the movement and bought a new CHNR last year anyway.
Such a beautiful thing.
As a watch it’s rather useless, timekeeping all over the place.
I just set it a few minutes ahead about once a week and forget about it.

It does get a lot of wrist time regardless.

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by joli160

Just use your phone to track the time, much more accurate.

I knew of the problems with the movement and bought a new CHNR last year anyway.
Such a beautiful thing.
As a watch it’s rather useless, timekeeping all over the place.
I just set it a few minutes ahead about once a week and forget about it.

It does get a lot of wrist time regardless.

the thing is some of us genuinely want our watch to be timekeepers... It doesn't matter I can get the time off my laptop or phone for some collectors part of the hobby is the timekeeping aspect. If it's just jewellery for you that's fair enough and your prerogative. For me I don't like my watch having a defect like that.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by joli160

As a watch it’s rather useless, timekeeping all over the place.

I think the only thing more absurd than paying $20k for a watch is paying $20k for a watch that doesn't keep time :)

A Porsche is also a beautiful thing, but if it were leaking oil and dying at every stoplight would you be as laid back?

These are machines. Beautiful machines, but still machines built for a purpose. I have to think Rolex themselves would be mortified to hear customers referring to their timekeeping as "useless". That is precisely what made the brand. And if they could keep time well with the technology of 70 years ago, how can we not demand that these latest marvels do the same?

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by joli160

Just use your phone to track the time, much more accurate.

I knew of the problems with the movement and bought a new CHNR last year anyway.
Such a beautiful thing.
As a watch it’s rather useless, timekeeping all over the place.
I just set it a few minutes ahead about once a week and forget about it.

It does get a lot of wrist time regardless.

An interesting approach which i use for a watch that consistently runs up to 3 seconds per day slow.
Outside of that, I'd be looking to blow the POS up out in the backyard if it couldn't benefit from a permanent fix.
On second thoughts, maybe I wouldn't really blow it up
But I'd get it sorted out by Rolex then flick it straight away for something decent and seriously cool like a vintage Rolex.

[rwn]

Does anyone have a technical guide for the 3235 ?

Thanks.

[saxo3]

Here is my technical guide.

If you do NOT win the 32xx lottery then you can get this:





If you want to WIN then buy a 3135 watch and you get this:

[Russm535il]

I am really surprised to read this my 1984 ( original owner) steel Datejust has incredible accuracy. I have a new no date sub on order from my local AD for my 69th birthday in September. ( who knows when it will arrive) Can anyone direct me to a link with more information? I agree that when we spend so much on a mechanical watch we deserve to expect excellence.

[Smobews]

Originally Posted by Russm535il

I am really surprised to read this my 1984 ( original owner) steel Datejust has incredible accuracy. I have a new no date sub on order from my local AD for my 69th birthday in September. ( who knows when it will arrive) Can anyone direct me to a link with more information? I agree that when we spend so much on a mechanical watch we deserve to expect excellence.

This is the big thread:

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthre...786299&page=89

[DeepcreekChrono]

I bought a GMT Master II last February and after noticing it was losing 3.8 seconds a day I sent it back for service. After getting it back it gains a second a day if I wear it every other day and wind it 20 times once a week. I have a yacht master on order so I'm curious if it has this problem.

[PepsiBezel]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Here is my technical guide.

If you do NOT win the 32xx lottery then you can get this:





If you want to WIN then buy a 3135 watch and you get this:

For those of us less versed in timegraphing, can you explain what we are seeing? What the chart’s axis abbreviations mean?

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by HarryFlashman

For those of us less versed in timegraphing, can you explain what we are seeing? What the chart’s axis abbreviations mean?

Most terms in watchmaking are french. CH is Cadran Haut (dial up), etc.

The pic should help86802257_WitschiNIHS95-10-ISO3158testpositions.PNG.2bf1f67d09088686a1584f6cfee3c99f.jpg



Generally speaking, vertical positions (dial and movement oriented vertically) produce more friction and thus result in a lower amplitude. As well, generally, as amplitude drops, timekeeping suffers.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by HarryFlashman

For those of us less versed in timegraphing, can you explain what we are seeing? What the chart’s axis abbreviations mean?

C: cadran = dial
H: haut = up
B: bas = down

CH: dial up
CB: dial down
9H: 9 up
6H: 6 up
3H: 3 up
12H: 12 up (not measured here)

X: 5-position average
D: delta, max. difference between positions

Rate: rate, measured in s/d
Beat: beat error, measured in ms
Ampl: amplitude, measured in degrees

Plus the infos from HiBoost

[aniconic]

You will find lots of people here with no problems, some with minor problems (e.g., off by 5 s or so per day), and a few with major problems (e.g., losing > 30 s per day). The last time I looked at the poll, it was ~75% no problems (yet), ~25% problems, but like all internet polls, it has unknown reliability because of a number of issues (e.g., sampling, wording of options, length of time people have owned their watches, amount of time watch is worn, etc.).

Because of the varied experiences and lack of objective data, you will find lots of differing advice, from avoid at all costs to don't worry about it and enjoy the watch.

My take (worth even less than you're paying for it) is that if the 75/25 split is approximately accurate, odds are good you won't have an issue. If the issue were more common, I'd expect fewer people reporting no problems and more people reporting problems. Note that this statement does not deny that people have reported serious problems; it just evaluates risk based on the information available. I'm also well aware I could be wrong, and I'll be happy to revise my take based on new data.

One view is that the 75/25 split is about right. You might make the odds even better by avoiding early 32xx watches; stick with brand new, and if buying used, make sure it comes with a valid warranty card. This latter suggestion is based on the assumption that there was something wrong with the early versions (either manufacturing or design, or a combination) and this has now been (silently) corrected. Again, this could be completely wrong.

A second view is that the 75/25 split might be too favorable. The odds could be worse if you consider the number of people who don't have their watches running very often (e.g., they have multiple watches and wear any given one rarely). If it is an issue that occurs based on run time (for want of a better expression), those folks are least likely to see anything. Again, this could be completely wrong.

Your question is, IMO, the correct approach: get as much info and then make a decision you're comfortable with. Whatever you decide, think carefully about whether it will detract from your enjoyment.

[MikeyV]

It's not that 75% of them don't have problems, it's that 75% of the people responding haven't had the problem happed to their watch YET.

Most watches running slow have been worn continuously for 9-12 months before the slowing starts. If you have 10 watches, or your 32XX is a safe queen, Or you wear one watch for a night then let it die, you may never notice.

They all have the problem. Shows up on some watches earlier than others.

Proof? The proof is that the same sh*t happens again after Rolex "repairs" them. That means that a standard clean and reassemble is not fixing the problem.

And if Rolex told you "If you buy this watch, there is a 25% chance that it will keep time for crap" then you'd have to have your head examined if you bought it.

[Tommy125]

Originally Posted by MikeyV

It's not that 75% of them don't have problems, it's that 75% of the people responding haven't had the problem happed to their watch YET.

Most watches running slow have been worn continuously for 9-12 months before the slowing starts. If you have 10 watches, or your 32XX is a safe queen, Or you wear one watch for a night then let it die, you may never notice.

They all have the problem. Shows up on some watches earlier than others.

Proof? The proof is that the same sh*t happens again after Rolex "repairs" them. That means that a standard clean and reassemble is not fixing the problem.

And if Rolex told you "If you buy this watch, there is a 25% chance that it will keep time for crap" then you'd have to have your head examined if you bought it.

Although I agree that there’s an unknown issue, I think you’re making a big assumption here for you to say that 75% are all new watches that haven’t developed the issue. Also, safe queens or watches worn not as often have also developed the issue. And interestingly, in the new updates, watches worn very often may actually improve.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by aniconic

You will find lots of people here with no problems, some with minor problems (e.g., off by 5 s or so per day), and a few with major problems (e.g., losing > 30 s per day). The last time I looked at the poll, it was ~75% no problems (yet), ~25% problems, but like all internet polls, it has unknown reliability because of a number of issues (e.g., sampling, wording of options, length of time people have owned their watches, amount of time watch is worn, etc.).

Because of the varied experiences and lack of objective data, you will find lots of differing advice, from avoid at all costs to don't worry about it and enjoy the watch.

My take (worth even less than you're paying for it) is that if the 75/25 split is approximately accurate, odds are good you won't have an issue. If the issue were more common, I'd expect fewer people reporting no problems and more people reporting problems. Note that this statement does not deny that people have reported serious problems; it just evaluates risk based on the information available. I'm also well aware I could be wrong, and I'll be happy to revise my take based on new data.

One view is that the 75/25 split is about right. You might make the odds even better by avoiding early 32xx watches; stick with brand new, and if buying used, make sure it comes with a valid warranty card. This latter suggestion is based on the assumption that there was something wrong with the early versions (either manufacturing or design, or a combination) and this has now been (silently) corrected. Again, this could be completely wrong.

A second view is that the 75/25 split might be too favorable. The odds could be worse if you consider the number of people who don't have their watches running very often (e.g., they have multiple watches and wear any given one rarely). If it is an issue that occurs based on run time (for want of a better expression), those folks are least likely to see anything. Again, this could be completely wrong.

Your question is, IMO, the correct approach: get as much info and then make a decision you're comfortable with. Whatever you decide, think carefully about whether it will detract from your enjoyment.