The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX


Go Back   Rolex Forums - Rolex Forum > Rolex & Tudor Watch Topics > Rolex WatchTech

View Poll Results: Does your 32xx movement seem to be 100% ok?
Yes, no issues 1,059 69.72%
No, amplitude is low (below 200) but timekeeping is still fine 62 4.08%
No, amplitude is low (below 200) and timekeeping is off (>5 s/d) 398 26.20%
Voters: 1519. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 3 August 2022, 08:21 AM   #2701
Youngling
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by amanbra View Post
Wear rate never matches static generally so it’s not a reason to be concerned in isolation. The watchmakers can only really regulate for static and have no idea how will wear it.

I find dial up to be a good proxy for me without bogging down in silly amounts of testing. It’s a very consistent proxy for me.

There is one other aspect I think you should explore and this is one where you will need timegrapher results as others have mentioned. You may have large variances between your positions and you might be in that position for a long time with how you wear it. Also amplitude I’d imagine could have a large bearing on stability during wearing the watch.

You appear to be interested enough in all this to buy a timegrapher. Even a iPhone timegrapher maybe, it’s a rabbit hole but some people do enjoy this stuff so consider it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes I understand that it is completely logical for the wearing rate to differ from resting positions but in my case they aren’t even near. All the resting positions are on the + side meanwhile it is -3 on the wrist. I’m not worried that there’s something wrong with it I just find it very odd and doesn’t understand why that can be - I would greatly prefer it to be closer to the other rates, that being on the + side. I know that I can achieve perfect timekeeping by resting it during night but I’m one that would like to be able to wear it 24/7 (also while sleeping so I can be able to tell the time of I wake up etc) and that’s why the -3 on wrist is a bit annoying.
Even when I have it on while sleeping it is -3. Which is VERY odd since I’m barely moving my arm while sleeping = the watch is ”resting”, just that it’s on my wrist.

Hehe, I know, I’ve thought about buying a timegrapher because it would be very handy but I think I may become a bit too obesessed with it. That’s just me as a person. In my case, it’s probably best to just go to a watchmaker if I want timegrapher values :)

Could you explain a bit about your theory regarding amplitudes / large variances. Didn’t quite get that.
Youngling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 August 2022, 08:42 AM   #2702
amanbra
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Real Name: Graham
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Youngling View Post
Yes I understand that it is completely logical for the wearing rate to differ from resting positions but in my case they aren’t even near. All the resting positions are on the + side meanwhile it is -3 on the wrist. I’m not worried that there’s something wrong with it I just find it very odd and doesn’t understand why that can be - I would greatly prefer it to be closer to the other rates, that being on the + side. I know that I can achieve perfect timekeeping by resting it during night but I’m one that would like to be able to wear it 24/7 (also while sleeping so I can be able to tell the time of I wake up etc) and that’s why the -3 on wrist is a bit annoying.
Even when I have it on while sleeping it is -3. Which is VERY odd since I’m barely moving my arm while sleeping = the watch is ”resting”, just that it’s on my wrist.

Hehe, I know, I’ve thought about buying a timegrapher because it would be very handy but I think I may become a bit too obesessed with it. That’s just me as a person. In my case, it’s probably best to just go to a watchmaker if I want timegrapher values :)

Could you explain a bit about your theory regarding amplitudes / large variances. Didn’t quite get that.
So weaker the amplitude the more likely the timing is affected by knocks and shocks. It's one of the reasons why some watchmakers use high beat, this isn't so much amp but the velocity at which the balance wheel alternates is faster and holds momentum better. My 321 Ed White which beats away at 2.5hz for instance is affected more by movement vs 1863 calibre speedy as a real world example.

Now in a situation where you're comparing the same movement I'd expect that a the movement with the higher amplitude is more stable vs it's lower amp counterpart.
amanbra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 August 2022, 09:22 AM   #2703
Youngling
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by amanbra View Post
So weaker the amplitude the more likely the timing is affected by knocks and shocks. It's one of the reasons why some watchmakers use high beat, this isn't so much amp but the velocity at which the balance wheel alternates is faster and holds momentum better. My 321 Ed White which beats away at 2.5hz for instance is affected more by movement vs 1863 calibre speedy as a real world example.

Now in a situation where you're comparing the same movement I'd expect that a the movement with the higher amplitude is more stable vs it's lower amp counterpart.
Got it, thank you.
Youngling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 August 2022, 02:15 AM   #2704
mike morris
"TRF" Member
 
mike morris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Real Name: Mike
Location: New York-Miami
Watch: SUB40-DJ36-YM40
Posts: 1,067
25% of people in this forum have problems with 32... movements ,many get problems latter. This generation movements is born dead.
mike morris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 August 2022, 02:24 AM   #2705
dannyp
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by amanbra View Post
So weaker the amplitude the more likely the timing is affected by knocks and shocks. It's one of the reasons why some watchmakers use high beat, this isn't so much amp but the velocity at which the balance wheel alternates is faster and holds momentum better. My 321 Ed White which beats away at 2.5hz for instance is affected more by movement vs 1863 calibre speedy as a real world example.

Now in a situation where you're comparing the same movement I'd expect that a the movement with the higher amplitude is more stable vs it's lower amp counterpart.
So is it possible that the 32xx issues are actually just one of amplitude, and then it’s the “knocks and shocks” you describe that cause the faltering timekeeping as a secondary infection of sorts? And is it further possible that the longer PR is causing people to wear them in a less-wound state, perpetuating the issue?

I do still wonder if magnetism plays a role: small parts, with tight fit tolerances, become magnetized, friction results, but it goes unnoticed until damage is done because the springs are antimagnetic.
dannyp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 August 2022, 03:16 AM   #2706
saxo3
"TRF" Member
 
saxo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,915
32xx movement problem poll and data thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike morris View Post
25% of people in this forum have problems with 32... movements ,many get problems latter. This generation movements is born dead.
Poll result is 28% just now

saxo3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 August 2022, 03:19 AM   #2707
dannyp
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxo3 View Post
28% just now

Just realized: this poll would be far more accurate if it only asked for data from those whose watches are more than a year old. Nearly all 32xx seem to do fine until that point.
dannyp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 August 2022, 03:26 AM   #2708
saxo3
"TRF" Member
 
saxo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,915
32xx movement problem poll and data thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyp View Post
Just realized: this poll would be far more accurate if it only asked for data from those whose watches are more than a year old. Nearly all 32xx seem to do fine until that point.
Maybe, when HiBoost created this poll in Jan 2021 it was close to the best possible poll imho. I may have done it differently, but that is irrelevant now. Don't forget, we knew much less than today. A lot of systematic data taking and work went into this thread. Members who have more than let's say 5-6 watches (32xx) may contribute even more with less speculations but more systematic timegrapher measurements and share the results here.
saxo3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 August 2022, 03:30 AM   #2709
dannyp
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxo3 View Post
Maybe, when HiBoost created this poll in Jan 2021 it was close to the best possible poll imho. I may have done it differently, but that is irrelevant now. Don't forget, we knew much less than today. A lot of systematic data taking and work went into this thread.
Didn’t mean to knock that in the last, and hindsight always is 20/20. More commenting on how the numbers are likely higher than presented.
dannyp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 August 2022, 03:32 AM   #2710
HiBoost
"TRF" Member
 
HiBoost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyp View Post
So is it possible that the 32xx issues are actually just one of amplitude, and then it’s the “knocks and shocks” you describe that cause the faltering timekeeping as a secondary infection of sorts? And is it further possible that the longer PR is causing people to wear them in a less-wound state, perpetuating the issue?

I do still wonder if magnetism plays a role: small parts, with tight fit tolerances, become magnetized, friction results, but it goes unnoticed until damage is done because the springs are antimagnetic.
I'm still not sold on this magnetism theory. Brass can't be magnetized. And there's no reason to believe that 32xx owners are more likely the be in intense magnetic fields than 31xx owners.

Low amplitude is the cause of the poor timekeeping, but the excessive friction seems to be the cause of the low amplitude. For those of us who have been able to measure declines in amplitude, the amplitude itself drops off faster than the timekeeping. For example... my Sub is 18 months old. I've worn it probably a total of 30 days in that time. Amplitude started low when new, but has gotten worse since (even at full wind). Yet timekeeping is still very good if the PR is topped off. I don't use winders. So I take the watch out of the box, fully wind and set it and wear it that day. By the next morning the amplitude is well below 200 degrees (out of spec) but I'm still within a second on the time. So for now, I'll just leave it be. It's clearly not 100%, but it's working for my purposes and I feel I have the best chance of a "real fix" the longer I wait into the 5 year period to send it in.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyp View Post
Just realized: this poll would be far more accurate if it only asked for data from those whose watches are more than a year old. Nearly all 32xx seem to do fine until that point.
We have long ago crucified this poll as meaningless and unscientific :) That said, it has been uncanny how the % of problem vs no-problem has stayed within a very small range all the way back to the first 50 votes up to the near 1000 we are at now. Users can only vote once. So for there to be 280 users on one forum which are reporting some kind of issue, I don't see how that can be written off as a nothingburger.

And of course the standard caveat applies. There are like 200 million seconds in a day so we shouldn't worry about being 1ms off the atomic clock.
HiBoost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 August 2022, 03:38 AM   #2711
saxo3
"TRF" Member
 
saxo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,915
32xx movement problem poll and data thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by HiBoost View Post
And of course the standard caveat applies. There are like 200 million seconds in a day so we shouldn't worry about being 1ms off the atomic clock.
Hi!
You still do not remember the correct magic watch number: 00468?

What about an updated set of timegrapher data for your 18 months young Submariner, just to please a few guys here …
saxo3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 August 2022, 03:41 AM   #2712
mike morris
"TRF" Member
 
mike morris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Real Name: Mike
Location: New York-Miami
Watch: SUB40-DJ36-YM40
Posts: 1,067
many people have more than one watch and don't use it that often, most don't pay attention to lag at all and that's just on this forum, rolex produces at least 300,000 watches a year with this movement ,about 100,000 watches a year have problems or will have in the future. It is not at all clear how such a large company could launch such a bad product on the market.
mike morris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 August 2022, 03:45 AM   #2713
saxo3
"TRF" Member
 
saxo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,915
32xx movement problem poll and data thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike morris View Post
It is not at all clear how such a large company could launch such a bad product on the market.
The answer is easy: the launch in 2015 was likely without sufficient (long term) testing and therefore too early.
saxo3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 August 2022, 03:59 AM   #2714
dannyp
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiBoost View Post
I'm still not sold on this magnetism theory. Brass can't be magnetized. And there's no reason to believe that 32xx owners are more likely the be in intense magnetic fields than 31xx owners.
You’re right, the likelihood is no greater. What a watchmaker told me was that small parts on modern Rolexes are still subject to magnetism, it will create friction, and the watch will lose some time. I’m going to assume it’s similar for 31xx and 32xx movements. My hypothesis is that the 32xx has tighter tolerances and therefore enough friction is created to actually damage parts not damaged on the other series.

The effects of the mannerism itself go unnoticed since they cause only small losses (vs older watches with springs subject to mannerism).

I still obviously have no proof, and someone could probably provide definitive evidence that I’m wrong (such as someone from Rolex R&D).
dannyp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 August 2022, 04:08 AM   #2715
dannyp
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxo3 View Post
The answer is easy: the launch in 2015 was likely without sufficient (long term) testing and therefore too early.
Or, something completely unaccounted for in the development process. If, and big “if” here, my theory about magnetism were right, it’s quite possible that finished movements weren’t ever subjected to magnetic fields and then observed. The newer materials used for key parts should mean that’s not an issue.
dannyp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 August 2022, 04:17 AM   #2716
saxo3
"TRF" Member
 
saxo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyp View Post
Or, something completely unaccounted for in the development process. If, and big “if” here, my theory about magnetism were right, it’s quite possible that finished movements weren’t ever subjected to magnetic fields and then observed. The newer materials used for key parts should mean that’s not an issue.
Rolex SA knows how to handle the influence of magnetic fields since the Milgauss, created in 1956. It can withstand magnetic fields of up to 1000 Gauss. Just for comparison, the earth magnetic field is about 0.5 Gauss.
saxo3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 August 2022, 04:20 AM   #2717
douglasf13
"TRF" Member
 
douglasf13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 5,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyp View Post
You’re right, the likelihood is no greater. What a watchmaker told me was that small parts on modern Rolexes are still subject to magnetism, it will create friction, and the watch will lose some time. I’m going to assume it’s similar for 31xx and 32xx movements. My hypothesis is that the 32xx has tighter tolerances and therefore enough friction is created to actually damage parts not damaged on the other series.

The effects of the mannerism itself go unnoticed since they cause only small losses (vs older watches with springs subject to mannerism).

I still obviously have no proof, and someone could probably provide definitive evidence that I’m wrong (such as someone from Rolex R&D).
I don’t know. I think we’re underestimating how dramatic an effect that an entirely new escapement design can have on a movement, and Chronergy may not have been ready for prime time. It took Omega a solid decade of version revisions, and then a new movement from the ground up, to get the co-axial to where it is today, and, while Chronergy isn’t quite as dramatic of a design difference, it’s really quite different than Rolex’s old Swiss lever.
douglasf13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 August 2022, 04:22 AM   #2718
dannyp
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxo3 View Post
Rolex SA knows how to handle the influence of magnetic fields since the Milgauss, created in 1956. It can withstand magnetic fields of up to 1000 Gauss. Just for comparison, the earth magnetic field is about 0.5 Gauss.
Oh, I’m sure it does know. But that wasn’t the question: the question was about whether that was a specific part of testing the new movements.
dannyp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 August 2022, 04:24 AM   #2719
saxo3
"TRF" Member
 
saxo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,915
32xx movement problem poll and data thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyp View Post
Oh, I’m sure it does know. But that wasn’t the question: the question was about whether that was a specific part of testing the new movements.
I don't know the definite answer to this question but assume that magnetic field and certainly many material studies were part of their R&D and test programs.
saxo3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 August 2022, 04:27 AM   #2720
dannyp
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
I don’t know. I think we’re underestimating how dramatic an effect that an entirely new escapement design can have on a movement, and Chronergy may not have been ready for prime time. It took Omega a solid decade of version revisions, and then a new movement from the ground up, to get the co-axial to where it is today, and, while Chronergy isn’t quite as dramatic of a design difference, it’s really quite different than Rolex’s old Swiss lever.
Also quite plausible.
dannyp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 August 2022, 04:43 AM   #2721
douglasf13
"TRF" Member
 
douglasf13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 5,622
This was a great article about Chronergy, if anyone wants to get a sense of the kinds of changes it made vs. a regular Swiss lever.

https://watchesbysjx.com/2021/05/rol...-analysis.html
douglasf13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 August 2022, 07:17 AM   #2722
amanbra
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Real Name: Graham
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyp View Post
So is it possible that the 32xx issues are actually just one of amplitude, and then it’s the “knocks and shocks” you describe that cause the faltering timekeeping as a secondary infection of sorts? And is it further possible that the longer PR is causing people to wear them in a less-wound state, perpetuating the issue?

I do still wonder if magnetism plays a role: small parts, with tight fit tolerances, become magnetized, friction results, but it goes unnoticed until damage is done because the springs are antimagnetic.

I don’t think so, for instance for me alone the watches when worn were very near full pr. When in a no shock situation on a timegrapher the watch was clearly slow and out of spec.

As for magnetism, if it were the culprit it would have been fixed in 2016.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
amanbra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 August 2022, 08:00 AM   #2723
HiBoost
"TRF" Member
 
HiBoost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxo3 View Post
Hi!
You still do not remember the correct magic watch number: 00468?

What about an updated set of timegrapher data for your 18 months young Submariner, just to please a few guys here …
I need to get on it the measurements! Been a busy summer :)
HiBoost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 August 2022, 08:56 AM   #2724
Dirt
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 8,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxo3 View Post
Maybe, when HiBoost created this poll in Jan 2021 it was close to the best possible poll imho. I may have done it differently, but that is irrelevant now. Don't forget, we knew much less than today. A lot of systematic data taking and work went into this thread. Members who have more than let's say 5-6 watches (32xx) may contribute even more with less speculations but more systematic timegrapher measurements and share the results here.
Agreed.
Then I will remind you all that I said the poll was flawed way back. If I recall correctly I also mentioned that my father would've been appaled as he was a highly respected Statistician in the Federal government and he imparted to me aspects of critical criterior which should be adhered to when puting a poll together.

Regardless, I have always supported the intent and acknowledge the contribution it has made
We found out early in the poll what we needed to know.

As an aside good people, I'm still not entirely convinced that I should get a timegrapher as I don't have a 32xx movement to worry about.
Dirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 August 2022, 09:03 AM   #2725
Dirt
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 8,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyp View Post
Didn’t mean to knock that in the last, and hindsight always is 20/20. More commenting on how the numbers are likely higher than presented.
100%
+1
Dirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 August 2022, 09:12 AM   #2726
Dirt
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 8,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyp View Post
Oh, I’m sure it does know. But that wasn’t the question: the question was about whether that was a specific part of testing the new movements.
There has always been improvement in anti magnetic properties among the more reputable manufacturers.
Rolex has a long history in this regard starting with the original Milgause and currently sitting with Silicon Hairsprings with Parachrome in the interim.

Danny, magnetism is absolutely not the issue here.
If it were, de-gausing a movement would be the primary fix just as it is for old school movements of any and all origin that don't self destruct like the 32xx movements do if left unchecked
Dirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 August 2022, 09:17 AM   #2727
Dirt
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 8,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by amanbra View Post
As for magnetism, if it were the culprit it would have been fixed in 2016.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yep.
These things are really only bettered straight out of the box by Metas or quartz
Dirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 August 2022, 09:23 AM   #2728
Dirt
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 8,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
I don’t know. I think we’re underestimating how dramatic an effect that an entirely new escapement design can have on a movement, and Chronergy may not have been ready for prime time. It took Omega a solid decade of version revisions, and then a new movement from the ground up, to get the co-axial to where it is today, and, while Chronergy isn’t quite as dramatic of a design difference, it’s really quite different than Rolex’s old Swiss lever.
This feeds directly into a solid theory i have long held regarding the problem with the movement

But that's another massderbate
Dirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 August 2022, 09:36 AM   #2729
Dirt
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 8,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxo3 View Post
The answer is easy: the launch in 2015 was likely without sufficient (long term) testing and therefore too early.
True.
The problem as I see it, is that it would be impossible to do accelerated wear testing on the entire assembly as it has to be set up to run at it's correct operating frequency.
Beta testing is the only way forward.

I understand that other mainstream and reputable manufacturers routinely make updates to service parts. Even for movements which are out of production.
Perhaps a watchmaker can confirm through their own experience?
Dirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 August 2022, 09:49 AM   #2730
Dirt
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 8,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike morris View Post
many people have more than one watch and don't use it that often, most don't pay attention to lag at all and that's just on this forum, rolex produces at least 300,000 watches a year with this movement ,about 100,000 watches a year have problems or will have in the future. It is not at all clear how such a large company could launch such a bad product on the market.
Rolex just plain and simply got it wrong and they didn't know it until they were going well down the path to double down on it. By the time they woke up, they probably thought they could get on top of it.
To date, they have not demonstrated the capacity. They might even be out of their depth.

The way I see it is they were caught with their pants down by their main competitor, with longer warranties and longer service intervals and longer power reserves and improvements around accuracy and higher technology.
Rolex got ahead of themselves by being motivated to out compete.

I seriously wonder if we'd be even having this conversation about Rolex products if they'd simply stuck with the 31xx movements. They basically had it covered in the 31xx movements with exception of power reserve.
They could've just kept up with the Jones's and been in a better place than they are now.
Anyway, it's a classic coulda, woulda, shoulda scenario
Dirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 20 (0 members and 20 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Asset Appeal

Wrist Aficionado

DavidSW Watches

Takuya Watches

OCWatches


*Banners Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.





Copyright ©2004-2024, The Rolex Forums. All Rights Reserved.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rolex is a registered trademark of ROLEX USA. The Rolex Forums is not affiliated with ROLEX USA in any way.