The 3235 Movement and The Fix (2 years out)

[LFDAmelio]

Originally Posted by Dirt

I suppose we could say that Thalidomide was a great idea back in its day too
Do they still prescribe that stuff?

Thank God, no! How would we wear our Rolexes??????

[DocOc]

Originally Posted by peterskinner

I’m still waiting for genuine evidence that there is a problem. A self-selecting sample on a forum is just that.....a self selecting sample. What about all the other owners who say nothing?
Rolex will have made millions of these movements over the last few years. Even a one % failure would be a lot of watches.
You have to believe Rolex is incompetent (and foolish) to knowingly make a faulty design. I doubt that a forum, which incorporates a tiny percentage of owners, is the last word on the ‘facts.’
I’ve had one ‘slow’ movement and five which are fine. Proving what?

Spot-on, sir. On every count. A few people have a problem with a new movement and their conclusion is that there’s a defect that needs a fix. And one of these individuals is actually proposing that the thirty year-old movement is better. Probably prefers to run in Chuck Taylors over modern running shoes.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Uhm... yeah, right.

Docs point was if your statement is correct, there would be 10s of thousands of watches returned, maybe 100,000. I don’t deny there is a problem, but I am sure the problem is the 3235 is more susceptible to slowing, not that every single movement WILL do this... what did you call it? Oh yeah, “grind itself in to dust”

Paul,

I get what you are saying, however if you factor in that a significant proportion of owners don't routinely check the accuracy of their watches, then the number of problematic movements will be under reported.

And if, as has been suggested, its not simply a lubrication issue, but a design "flaw" (as had been suggested) meaning that even properly lubricated movements when manufactured will eventually have the same issues, then the problem will be more widespread. Indeed there are several examples of repaired movements exhibiting the same issue after a year or so.

Whilst I fully respect Bas as a member on here, he is ultimately a Rolex employee and if there was a known and widespread design issue with the movement which Rolex are working to fix, it would be extremely remis of him (not to mention potentially job threatening) to betray his employer's trust by admitting that on a public forum.

I personally know of 3 3235s which have suddenly started losing time, having been extremely accurate previously.

Even allowing for the "forum effect" there are just too many reports coming in

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by peterskinner

I’m still waiting for genuine evidence that there is a problem. A self-selecting sample on a forum is just that.....a self selecting sample. What about all the other owners who say nothing?
Rolex will have made millions of these movements over the last few years. Even a one % failure would be a lot of watches.
You have to believe Rolex is incompetent (and foolish) to knowingly make a faulty design. I doubt that a forum, which incorporates a tiny percentage of owners, is the last word on the ‘facts.’
I’ve had one ‘slow’ movement and five which are fine. Proving what?

It would suggest that in your sample, 20% have an issue.

Sometimes manufacturers make mistakes. Look at Porsche and the IMS bearing issues for one, aor the original Audi TT rear aero problems that caused at least 5 deaths.

It is far from inconceivable that Rolex could do the same

[DocOc]

Originally Posted by Devildog

It would suggest that in your sample, 20% have an issue.

Sometimes manufacturers make mistakes. Look at Porsche and the IMS bearing issues for one, aor the original Audi TT rear aero problems that caused at least 5 deaths.

It is far from inconceivable that Rolex could do the same

Comparing cars to wristwatches doesn’t work. They are very different products.

Cars are notorious for defects - both in terms of design and production. Today’s cars are radically more complex than even the most complicated wristwatch, merging multitudes of disciplines into one complex, cohesive machine. Even a company like Rolls Royce that obsesses over quality cannot produce cars that don’t have defects. They get it wrong too.

Rolex has two comparatively simple jobs: design and manufacture four or five accurate movements for their various wristwatch models, and build solid parts for the watch itself (eg case, bracelet, crystal, etc.). When you focus on one comparatively simple product like that, your goals - unlike those of a car company - absolutely positively must be perfection. Producing a defective movement would be like a professional chef overcooking steaks.

[Mr. Drunmond]

I'm not saying Rolex couldn't have designed a movement with a design flaw. That's entirely probable in the history of the company.

But it makes no logical sense that they would put it in the new subs this year. The new movement has been out a couple of years, if they were getting even 1% watches returned and they didn't have a fix, they would have just kept the old movement in their most iconic watch while they work on a fix.

They would have sold 0% less submariners this year had they kept the old movement in it. The cost of repairs of even 1% of subs would be huge. That would be a fire-able offense at a C level.

[Mystro]

You don’t have to bevon this forum for a decade to see there is a pattern of some 32 series movements slowing down in a chronic way over a period of a year. You never see them speeding up. If it were random you would also have the occasional report of a movement speeding up as well.
The newbies perhaps think reporting issues is normal on TRF and it is BUT they are more random issues and not this same exact problem. There IS a pattern with the 32 series movement having a very similar slowing down characteristic. I know we are beyond that being a random complaint.

A completely different motive to deny this is happening is wanting not to upset current and rising inflated market values of hyped models. I can feel a certain amount of plausible deniability with some reactions to this 32 series movement pattern of slowing down. “If we deny this is happening enough, we can pass it off as a random fluke to the movement.” We have years of this pattern on the forum now and we are beyond “head in sand” tactics.

Rolex will and has to work this out and will do so silently behind their veil of secrecy. This is the way Rolex works. Rolex of all companies knows how to guard their secrets and operating tactics.

[Harry-57]

I worked in a team of 10 who all drove the same make and model of company car. All nine of my colleagues experienced zero issues over three years. My car was the most unreliable I have ever had the misfortune of keeping/owing. It never went right and broke down every other month.

Were my colleague lucky or was I unlucky? What use was their luck to me?

[DocOc]

Originally Posted by Mystro

You don’t have to bevon this forum for a decade to see there is a pattern of some 32 series movements slowing down in a chronic way over a period of a year. You never see them speeding up. If it were random you would also have the occasional report of a movement speeding up as well.
The newbies perhaps think reporting issues is normal on TRF and it is BUT they are more random issues and not this same exact problem. There IS a pattern with the 32 series movement having a very similar slowing down characteristic. I know we are beyond that being a random complaint.

The 3235 movement is more resistant to magnetization than the 3135 is it not? So the issue of speeding up will understandably appear less frequently.
Moreover, I think more people are accepting of their watch gaining time than losing time. COSC certainly is.

But the bigger issue is your use of the word “pattern”. A handful of people on a forum complaining about an issue does not constitute a “pattern”. The 3235 movement came out in 2015, right? Do you know how many of these movements are out there in the world right now? A few million, I’d imagine.

[Mystro]

Originally Posted by DocOc

The 3235 movement is more resistant to magnetization than the 3135 is it not? So the issue of speeding up will understandably appear less frequently.
Moreover, I think more people are accepting of their watch gaining time than losing time. COSC certainly is.

But the bigger issue is your use of the word “pattern”. A handful of people on a forum complaining about an issue does not constitute a “pattern”. The 3235 movement came out in 2015, right? Do you know how many of these movements are out there in the world right now? A few million, I’d imagine.

That is a false. Magnetism causes erratic and very great sudden changes. Movements regardless of what their hair spring is made of speed up just as frequent as slowing down when having typical issues.
If we saw ANY movement gradually speed up over the course of a year by as much as a minute a day, it would be reported. Many Rolex movements are reported to speed up as they get closer to their routine service. It’s common place. TRF is the worlds largest and number 1 forum source of Rolex information. We see everything here in greater numbers but more important knowledgeable perspective. It’s not hard to sift through the typical complaints and see a pattern emerge over the past few years with the 32 series movement slowing down. I have seen it myself personally. Low and falling amplitudes of the 32 series movement is a reported fact. Even optimally, the 32 series movement has a low amplitude to start with and falls off quicker into its power reserve than a movement with a dual barrel mainspring. Rolex made a conscious design concession by how they maximized their main spring life with one very fine spring in one barrel. It was questioned and gave serious concern by every watchmaker when it was released if it was more of a bandaid design to achieve a longer power reserve. Time will tell.


That said, the amplitude measurement is a EKG of your movement and can’t be interpreted incorrectly if there is something going wrong inside the movement. I agree there are millions of these sold but just as many worn as jewelry and their timekeeping never scrutinized or even monitored. This is why TRF is center of the Rolex online universe of what these watches are all about because we are not blissfully ignorant to the movement inside the mechanical watch.

Let’s keep this in perspective in the grand scheme of releasing a new movement. We are in a time of incredible transparency between owners and world wide reports of performance like we’ve never had before the Internet. Gold standard movements before the Internet might not of had such a pristine reputation had there been the reporting we have today. Rolex as well as everyone else had their share of teething pains that went on behind closed doors without being reported.

[brandrea]

That’s it ... fire sale

Who’s wants my 32 series movement watches

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by DocOc

Comparing cars to wristwatches doesn’t work. They are very different products.

Cars are notorious for defects - both in terms of design and production. Today’s cars are radically more complex than even the most complicated wristwatch, merging multitudes of disciplines into one complex, cohesive machine. Even a company like Rolls Royce that obsesses over quality cannot produce cars that don’t have defects. They get it wrong too.

Rolex has two comparatively simple jobs: design and manufacture four or five accurate movements for their various wristwatch models, and build solid parts for the watch itself (eg case, bracelet, crystal, etc.). When you focus on one comparatively simple product like that, your goals - unlike those of a car company - absolutely positively must be perfection. Producing a defective movement would be like a professional chef overcooking steaks.

I disagree

Comparing a potential design flaw in a mainstream Rolex movement to a design flaw in a mainstream Porsche engine (that was produced for 9 years in huge numbers) as absolutely a valid comparison. Particularly when both issues centre around design/lubrication/premature wear, and were not initially picked up in testing.

Arguably there could not be a better comparison.

Just like Rolex movements should be 100%, so should have been a flat 6 Porsche boxer engine used to power Boxters, Caymans and 911s.

It does happen. Rolex may well have got this one somewhat less than perfect.

[DocOc]

Originally Posted by Mystro

That is a false. Magnetism causes erratic and very great changes. Movements regardless of what their hair spring is made of speed up just as frequent as slowing down when having typical issues.
If we saw ANY movement gradually speed up over the course of a year by as much as a minute a day, it would be reported. Many Rolex movements are reported to speed up as they get closer to their routine service. It’s common place. TRF is the worlds largest and number 1 forum source of Rolex information. We see everything here in greater numbers but more important knowledgeable perspective. It’s not hard to sift through the typical complaints and see a pattern emerge over the past few years with the 32 series movement slowing down. I have seen it myself personally. Low and falling amplitudes of the 32 series movement is a reported fact. Even optimally, the 32 series movement has a low amplifier to start with. It’s a EKG of your movement and can’t be interpreted incorrectly.

I stand corrected. I thought movements speed up when magnetized because of the effect on the spring. My mistake.

Still, it doesn’t change the point that observations on a forum - even if they are accurate observations - do not constitute a pattern of problems with a movement that can be found in the millions out in the real world. I understand what you’re trying to say: ie that what you see on this forum is representative of what is happening out in the weld. It undoubtedly, unquestionably, unequivocally, unambiguously is not.

[Mystro]

Originally Posted by DocOc

I stand corrected. I thought movements speed up when magnetized because of the effect on the spring. My mistake.

Still, it doesn’t change the point that observations on a forum - even if they are accurate observations - do not constitute a pattern of problems with a movement that can be found in the millions out in the real world. I understand what you’re trying to say: ie that what you see on this forum is representative of what is happening out in the weld. It undoubtedly, unquestionably, unequivocally, unambiguously is not.

Everyone can interpret what they read on the form for themself and let their experience guide them in drawing a conclusion.

IMO, and 30+ years of automatic watch ownership as well as a super mechanical watch nerd and over a decade in forum interpretation........I believe there is a pattern to all this and Rolex will work out a resolution quietly behind their masterful closed doors. We probably won’t know when or what they did but the forum reported problems of a 32 series movement slowing down will gradually start to dissipate. In today’s world we all can probably associate new early movement buyers as beta testers. This is the time they are put to the test if you really believe Rolex is the king and trust they will make it right.

It also will separate the commodity traders from the watch enthusiast if Rolex market share settles back closer to their msrp.

[DocOc]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Everyone can interpret what they read on the form for themself and let their experience guide them in drawing a conclusion.

IMO, and 30+ years of automatic watch ownership as well as a super mechanical watch nerd and over a decade in forum interpretation........I believe there is a pattern to all this and Rolex will work out a resolution quietly behind their masterful closed doors. We probably won’t know when or what they did but the forum reported problems of a 32 series movement slowing down will gradually start to dissipate. In today’s world we all can probably associate new early movement buyers as beta testers. This is the time they are put to the test if you really believe Rolex is the king and trust they will make it right.

It also will separate the commodity traders from the watch enthusiast if Rolex market share settles back closer to their msrp.

I’m sorry, and with all due respect, but your experience with wristwatches, much less wristwatch forums, doesn’t lend credence to your argument.

What is needed is hard data: a completely randomized and adequately-sized sample of 3235 movements out in the world, to see what percentage of them are showing this supposed defect. Or... better yet, data from Rolex (which they’d never divulge be it good or bad) showing us what percentage of 3235 movements have been serviced for this issue since 2015. I think such data would show that there is no such issue.

Lastly, I cannot disagree with you more on your assertion that the early movement buyers are “beta testers”. For a guy who loves timepieces, you don’t seem to appreciate what’s important in the industry: money, or course, but Rolex makes its money by its name. If they started selling dud wristwatches, they wouldn’t sell many watches.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Let’s keep this in perspective in the grand scheme of releasing a new movement. We are in a time of incredible transparency between owners and world wide reports of performance like we’ve never had before the Internet. Gold standard movements before the Internet might not of had such a pristine reputation had there been the reporting we have today. Rolex as well as everyone else had their share of teething pains that went on behind closed doors without being reported.

Agreed, the internet amplification factor here can definitely be in play. Still, it's frustrating to be a new owner, first time ever purchasing a new Rolex, and have this cloud hanging over me.

To your point, and to counter those in this thread who seem to suggest the 31xx series were essentially flawless, consider Bas's comments (from the other thread) to the contrary. It points to significant issues ("wear to shreds doesn't sound much better than "wear to dust" haha) within short times.

Originally Posted by SearChart

Once you start making thousands and thousands of movements and they are being used in the real world you can always come across something that might not have been discovered during development.

And still, the 31 series and 22 series use a rotor axle, it is not uncommon for those to wear to shreds well within warranty period. And the 31×× has been in use since 1989...

[MikeyV]

How many people wear the watch long enough to see the problem?
I'd bet most folks have many watches, they set one, put it on, wear it for teh day/night, then it's sent to teh roll to die.

Those people would NEVER see the slowing. Also, they'd never post here about it.

I wear my watch 24/7/365.

It's my opinion that they all have this problem to some degree. Some people notice it, some don't. Some people don't even bother setting the time or winding a watch when they wear it. It's common I'm sure. They're not here posting about it!
It has to be a baked in design flaw, why else would they come back fixed only to run slow again in 8-12 months?
Mine's done it twice. If there was no problem, and mine was just bunk why did it happen again?

Why do others send them in only to have it happen again?

Because RSC just puts them back to stock and re-oils, which makes them run perfectly for 8-12 months, then straight to -6 or more spd immediately.

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by MikeyV

How many people wear the watch long enough to see the problem?
I'd bet most folks have many watches, they set one, put it on, wear it for teh day/night, then it's sent to teh roll to die.

Those people would NEVER see the slowing. Also, they'd never post here about it.

I wear my watch 24/7/365.

It's my opinion that they all have this problem to some degree. Some people notice it, some don't. Some people don't even bother setting the time or winding a watch when they wear it. It's common I'm sure. They're not here posting about it!
It has to be a baked in design flaw, why else would they come back fixed only to run slow again in 8-12 months?
Mine's done it twice. If there was no problem, and mine was just bunk why did it happen again?

Why do others send them in only to have it happen again?

Because RSC just puts them back to stock and re-oils, which makes them run perfectly for 8-12 months, then straight to -6 or more spd immediately.

[Mystro]

Originally Posted by DocOc

I’m sorry, and with all due respect, but your experience with wristwatches, much less wristwatch forums, doesn’t lend credence to your argument.

What is needed is hard data: a completely randomized and adequately-sized sample of 3235 movements out in the world, to see what percentage of them are showing this supposed defect. Or... better yet, data from Rolex (which they’d never divulge be it good or bad) showing us what percentage of 3235 movements have been serviced for this issue since 2015. I think such data would show that there is no such issue.

Lastly, I cannot disagree with you more on your assertion that the early movement buyers are “beta testers”. For a guy who loves timepieces, you don’t seem to appreciate what’s important in the industry: money, or course, but Rolex makes its money by its name. If they started selling dud wristwatches, they wouldn’t sell many watches.

Welcome to TRF. You are extremely new to TRF and its flow of data and expertise here that doesn't necessary announce their experience level for many reasons. You might be shocked who is chiming in.
Buckle in for awhile and you will observe which opinions have enough weight and experienced or not. Long term players will show a common theme and ideology for a reason. TRF is certainly not like other social media outlets where the loudest megaphones opinions hold equal weight. You earn your stripes on this forum. You also cant fake your experience or reputation on this forum which is why TRF is what it is.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by MikeyV

How many people wear the watch long enough to see the problem?
I'd bet most folks have many watches, they set one, put it on, wear it for teh day/night, then it's sent to teh roll to die.

Those people would NEVER see the slowing. Also, they'd never post here about it.

I wear my watch 24/7/365.

It's my opinion that they all have this problem to some degree. Some people notice it, some don't. Some people don't even bother setting the time or winding a watch when they wear it. It's common I'm sure. They're not here posting about it!
It has to be a baked in design flaw, why else would they come back fixed only to run slow again in 8-12 months?
Mine's done it twice. If there was no problem, and mine was just bunk why did it happen again?

Why do others send them in only to have it happen again?

Because RSC just puts them back to stock and re-oils, which makes them run perfectly for 8-12 months, then straight to -6 or more spd immediately.

I definitely fall into this camp and posted exactly that in another thread by the same OP

Regardless, I’ll hold onto my 32 movement Rolex’s. I do use them to tell time and they do a fine job of that for me.

I understand why this is an issue for some here though, and I fully expect Rolex will resolve the issue if they haven’t already.

That said, if the millions of watches with 32 xx movements they’ve already shipped become dogs and can’t be fixed, I’ll be ok. I haven’t missed an appointment yet

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by Mystro

TRF is certainly not like other social media outlets where the loudest megaphones opinions hold equal weight. You earn your stripes on this forum. You also cant fake your experience or reputation on this forum which is why TRF is what it is.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by MikeyV

It's my opinion that they all have this problem to some degree. Some people notice it, some don't. Some people don't even bother setting the time or winding a watch when they wear it. It's common I'm sure. They're not here posting about it!
It has to be a baked in design flaw, why else would they come back fixed only to run slow again in 8-12 months?
Mine's done it twice. If there was no problem, and mine was just bunk why did it happen again?

Why do others send them in only to have it happen again?

Because RSC just puts them back to stock and re-oils, which makes them run perfectly for 8-12 months, then straight to -6 or more spd immediately.

For further perspective, I reached out to a Rolex trained independent watchmaker on this topic. His input was that he is not aware of any design flaws, and he has significant experience with the 3235. He also indicated that the 3135 has multiple design problems which lead to failures and excessive wear. They just aren't discussed on internet forums, perhaps because those forums didn't exist when the 3135 was the new thing under the microscope for scrutiny.

As far as the notion that just because some have had the problem multiple times this "proves" there is an issue, I'm not so quick to come to that conclusion. Several have reported that their watch was simply "regulated" and sent back. Others have said RSC indicated they didn't find any problems. If it wasn't torn down and serviced, then it probably didn't have any new/extra lubrication added. So of course the core problem would not be fixed. And if it was truly the case that adding lube did not do anything other than buy you 6 months then everywatch would have a second, third, fourth problem. Surely there are many people on here who have worn their DD or DJ or GMT every day for years. I refuse to believe that the common Rolex owner walks around with the time not set and has no clue his watch is in shambles. Some have reported a minute a day with the problem in full bloom. You don't think you'd notice if every month you had to advance the watch 30 minutes?

[MikeyV]

I wear mine constantly. If I ever let it stop, that's when the time drop comes in.

This happened both times. Went to Mexico and took the Tudor, came back adn went from running perfect to -6 spd. Got as bas as -9.

RSC fixed is, worn constantly, Mexico again, and ran slow upon re-wind.

It was running -8 after that, but now, after wearing it non stop for 4 months, it's back to -5 spd and getting better.

But I kow if I let it stop, it'll go back. It's always done that.

What about letting it stop would cause it to go to running poorly?
Does the oil and dust gum up? Only to loosen after beating 10 billion times?

Makes no sense.

What would make even less sense is if only some of them did this.
Why wouldn't they all have the same issue if it's a design problem(not assembly problem)?
They're all cranked out on machines after all, right? Not like they're filed to fit, like someone like Patek would have you believe about their watches.

[DocOc]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Welcome to TRF. You are extremely new to TRF and its flow of data and expertise here that doesn't necessary announce their experience level for many reasons. You might be shocked who is chiming in.
Buckle in for awhile and you will observe which opinions have enough weight and experienced or not. Long term players will show a common theme and ideology for a reason. TRF is certainly not like other social media outlets where the loudest megaphones opinions hold equal weight. You earn your stripes on this forum. You also cant fake your experience or reputation on this forum which is why TRF is what it is.

What you’re saying about this forum and its members may indeed be true - who am I to disagree? But nothing trumps human nature and common sense. The assertions being made here fly in the face of these. The disgruntled tend to report problems more, an internet forum (no matter how special it is) is unlikely to mirror data out in the real world, and a company who lives off of its reputation would never screw up its bread-and-butter responsibility and turn right around and sell it to the public anyway.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by Devildog

Paul,

I get what you are saying, however if you factor in that a significant proportion of owners don't routinely check the accuracy of their watches, then the number of problematic movements will be under reported.

And if, as has been suggested, its not simply a lubrication issue, but a design "flaw" (as had been suggested) meaning that even properly lubricated movements when manufactured will eventually have the same issues, then the problem will be more widespread. Indeed there are several examples of repaired movements exhibiting the same issue after a year or so.

Whilst I fully respect Bas as a member on here, he is ultimately a Rolex employee and if there was a known and widespread design issue with the movement which Rolex are working to fix, it would be extremely remis of him (not to mention potentially job threatening) to betray his employer's trust by admitting that on a public forum.

I personally know of 3 3235s which have suddenly started losing time, having been extremely accurate previously.

Even allowing for the "forum effect" there are just too many reports coming in

True, you do have a point in the probably 90%(?) of Rolex owners are not as anal as TRF members, and don’t regularly check the accuracy. In their cases it would take a severe change to even get noticed, and then reported. Eventually it would, and we would have a mass recall, or.. collapse? Who knows what would happen. I still have to believe that if this is a definitive flaw in the actual design of the movement, that will eventually cause EVERY 3235 watch to fail, Rolex would come up with a solution. They would HAVE to, that is really my point. I don’t believe Rolex would continue to manufacture and sell a known destined to fail product, at least not without a future fix. I think that would literally be the demise of the company and they haven’t been a premier watch manufacturer for the last 100 years making stupid decisions.

Oh, and to the all-knowing DIRT (wonder how you got that screen name), if you are continuing to write posts disrespecting me and my friend, you are the one wasting your time.

Does everyone know about the “ignore” feature on TRF? How useful! And I now have one person on my ignore list. 12 years and only now have discovered a member so deserved.

[Mystro]

Just to clarify a general opinion......
"Does anyone believe Rolex will NOT sort this out in a discrete process?"

IMO, this a temporary teething issue much like Omega had with the gen 1 Co Axial.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by DocOc

What you’re saying about this forum and its members may indeed be true - who am I to disagree? But nothing trumps human nature and common sense. The assertions being made here fly in the face of these. The disgruntled tend to report problems more, an internet forum (no matter how special it is) is unlikely to mirror data out in the real world, and a company who lives off of its reputation would never screw up its bread-and-butter responsibility and turn right around and sell it to the public anyway.

Doc may be new, but I agree with his primary opinion. I.e. A company as successful and respected as Rolex, would not continue to produce and sell a product that had a 100% failure rate within a year (or so), not without a fix in the works. Seriously? You believe that? It would be the demise of the most iconic brand in history. Rolex would literally fail, their brand recognition would be completely destroyed (and there would be a mass sell-off of 3235 pieces and a mass demand for vintage!). So, either Rolex will come up with a fix, or this issue is NOT 100% failure. I have a theory that the 3235 is more susceptible to problems because of this design, and I think Rolex will have a fix, but 100% destined failure? I just don’t believe it. Any company that chose to sell a product like that is itself destined for failure.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Just to clarify a general opinion......
"Does anyone believe Rolex will NOT sort this out in a discrete process?"

IMO, this a temporary teething issue much like Omega had with the gen 1 Co Axial.

Yes, I agree I don’t know anything about the Omega issue but I agree Rolex will have a solution. As you pointed out, probably discreet.

[Mystro]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Doc may be new, but I agree with his primary opinion. I.e. A company as successful and respected as Rolex, would not continue to produce and sell a product that had a 100% failure rate within a year (or so), not without a fix in the works. Seriously? You believe that? It would be the demise of the most iconic brand in history. Rolex would literally fail, their brand recognition would be completely destroyed (and there would be a mass sell-off of 3235 pieces and a mass demand for vintage!). So, either Rolex will come up with a fix, or this issue is NOT 100% failure. I have a theory that the 3235 is more susceptible to problems because of this design, and I think Rolex will have a fix, but 100% destined failure? I just don’t believe it. Any company that chose to sell a product like that is itself destined for failure.

Yup. There is some smoke to this potential fire but at this point the scope of the issue could be such a minor fix it is addressed at routine servicing. I dont think we will ever know at least from Rolex. I guess at this point in my life, I have complete faith in Rolex understanding and addressing the issue. Totally a first world problem.

[alphadweller]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Just to clarify a general opinion......
"Does anyone believe Rolex will NOT sort this out in a discrete process?"

IMO, this a temporary teething issue much like Omega had with the gen 1 Co Axial.

Agreed, I have no doubt Rolex will fix this once for all. Until such permanent fix is available and my watches don't fall below - 10 s/d, I won't take them to the RSC. They offered to regulate my SD43 running at - 6 s/d on average (-4 HU, - 6 HD, - 8 CU, - 10 CD) or - 3 min a month as they like to put it. According to them, "there's absolutely nothing wrong with the 3235, not even the first batches. It might need a regulation, that's all, 3 minutes a month is beyond our standard". Rolex live on their reputation of quality watches and excellent service, so they're not going to jeopardise it divulging sensible data like failure rates for their 3235 movements.

I have an Omega Planet Ocean, bought in 2005. This is one of the first bi-level coaxial movements, caliber 2500C. Never came across a single problem with it and I wore the watch daily 7 years straight. The only thing was after 11 years, it went from +2 s/d to - 3 s/d, still within COSC. I took it for an overhaul (not that I had to) and it came back super accurate again. They changed a bunch of parts (which they gave me back) including the escape wheel, so I guess it did need a service.