32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Easy E

I have considered this already. Very well may just do that.

Your new 3285 also exhibits a poor isochronism. As a final measurement (after approximately 1-2 months), I recommend to perform again a series of measurements at 0, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 hours to ascertain whether the isochronism has undergone any changes. You probably already thought of that.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Easy E

On the wrist this watch appears to run fine, as described above, you probably wouldn't notice. On one hand that is really the point of the watch. On the other, when you look under the hood there is a different story. I do have a question regarding "break in." Pretty sure I know the answer, but here goes. I have read many times about giving a watch a break in period (duration varies). By winding, wearing, letting run all the out and repeating, what if anything will that procedure do to "loosen" this watch up?

A most interesting cunundrum with respect to the on the wrist performance vs looking under the hood.
As much as it goes against the grain and knowing what you know looking under the hood, i'm not so sure that i would pursue it any further and wait and see with it as a point of interest or curiosity until something changes with the timekeeping or something else.
Having said that the pull of the 5 year warranty would be the most prudent course of action, especially as accidental damage to the watch can happen at any time which would negate warranty.

The run in period has already happened before shipping the watch. They always used to say it was roughly a couple of weeks for them to settle in.

[Poodlopogus]

Originally Posted by Easy E

So then to me, the next most obvious question is what is the difference between the pallet forks?

Originally Posted by Via reggio

Dont really know, they look the same

Thought about this a bit more and wonder if we should be asking a different question: What was wrong with the original fork that was fixed by a replacement?Rather than assuming a design change to the fork itself, what if somehow, through normal wear, the original became deformed somehow?

Could that at least give a clue as to the problem's origin?

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Poodlopogus

Thought about this a bit more and wonder if we should be asking a different question: What was wrong with the original fork that was fixed by a replacement?Rather than assuming a design change to the fork itself, what if somehow, through normal wear, the original became deformed somehow?

Could that at least give a clue as to the problem's origin?

Short answer: no.
Lubrication and epilames have been suspected, read this thread.

[saxo3]

Does anyone have a watch with a caliber 4131, 7140, 9002?

It would be very interesting to test them (with a timegrapher) immediately after purchase.

[Poodlopogus]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Short answer: no.
Lubrication and epilames have been suspected, read this thread.

Ok, sure, the key word being "suspected" here. I've skimmed the thread (though it's a bit lengthy...) and realize that there have been numerous hypotheses. And I'm no watchmaker, but it seems that whatever the issue is, it's systemic.

I also have seen the posts where it's been confirmed that certain parts are displaying visual wear where none should be, whatever the root cause may be. So, it would be reasonable to ask why changing the pallet fork worked:

1. Is it because it has in fact been modified quietly?
2. Is it because the systemic issue caused premature wear/deformity to the original (possibly difficult to see without magnification)?


Another option (couldn't tell if it was already tried during service), is if it's unrelated to the fork itself, and simply the act of uninstalling and reinstalling it solving the problem (perhaps only temporarily)?

[saxo3]

From the reported facs that new 32xx watches (2023/24) as well as older (2018/19) but unworn + very little worn 32xx watches have the same type of issue (too low amplitudes after full winding) yields to the conclusion that wear is not the root cause of the 32xx problem. Three supporting posts I quote from a RSC watchmaker:

-----
(1) I knew it was worse than we thought when 32xx's come in and have no wear at all, yet run terrible. Or when you serviced one and it's perfectly lubricated, yet it cannot even reach 200 degrees fully wound dial up...

(2) Not specific to the 3230, I've unfortunately seen this on all types. Amplitude is checked before the date mechanism is assembled. The plan of action is to start with replacing the balance staff, then pallet fork, escape wheel, rest of the gear train. Pallet fork and balance staff replacement usually get me enough amplitude to barely reach tolerance...

(3) Correct, parts that did not show any sign of wear/deterioration at all that are replaced out of desperation to reach a minimum amplitude off 200 degrees after 24hrs.
A 24 hours test can be simulated by releasing a couple of ratchet wheel rotations. This problem runs so much deeper than just migration of lubricants and a pivot that occasionally wear out prematurely.
-----

I stop here and will not continue with speculations. That is not the objective of this thread!

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Does anyone have a watch with a caliber 4131, 7140, 9002?

It would be very interesting to test them (with a timegrapher) immediately after purchase.

I have a 4131. Most accurate and position-independent movement I've owned so far.

I have zeroed out my 32xx collection finally. I would sell this Daytona too if it wasn't so accurate. I get +0.3 to +0.6 whether I wear it or leave it on the Orbita for a week. I realize that's not amplitude vs reserve time.

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by EEpro

I have a 4131. Most accurate and position-independent movement I've owned so far.

I have zeroed out my 32xx collection finally. I would sell this Daytona too if it wasn't so accurate. I get +0.3 to +0.6 whether I wear it or leave it on the Orbita for a week. I realize that's not amplitude vs reserve time.

If you don’t mind me asking, what is it about your current Daytona that you consider punting that one?

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by Easy E

If you don’t mind me asking, what is it about your current Daytona that you consider punting that one?

The Daytona truly is pretty damn good. It's easily the best Rolex I've owned and I think I've owned them all except Day Date. I have soured on the brand and what to me feels like fake or overstated luxury.

I have been enjoying my Omega 321 which is very legible, has a comically comfortable bracelet, great lume, beautiful movement, and my two remaining VCs.

It's safe for now but I won't hold it through service. Once that time comes I'll negotiate that into the sale to a TS here and move on.

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by EEpro

The Daytona truly is pretty damn good. It's easily the best Rolex I've owned and I think I've owned them all except Day Date. I have soured on the brand and what to me feels like fake or overstated luxury.

I have been enjoying my Omega 321 which is very legible, has a comically comfortable bracelet, great lume, beautiful movement, and my two remaining VCs.

It's safe for now but I won't hold it through service. Once that time comes I'll negotiate that into the sale to a TS here and move on.

Interesting timing on this post as I've seriously soured on the brand recently as well. The market has definitely softened so I thought the AD experience would get better, but strangely it's gotten worse. I've had used car dealers treat me better. It had already gotten to the point where I've reduced my visits to Rolex ADs, and I had a really nasty visit today that was so bad it's gotten me contemplating actually selling the two I have left and moving on from the brand altogether.

I think it's appropriate I'm posting this here because I was literally thinking "I must be insane to tolerate being treated like this just for the privilege of purchasing what may be a lemon watch".

Anyway, rant over, back to regular 32xx programming...

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by EEpro

I have a 4131. Most accurate and position-independent movement I've owned so far.

I have zeroed out my 32xx collection finally. I would sell this Daytona too if it wasn't so accurate. I get +0.3 to +0.6 whether I wear it or leave it on the Orbita for a week. I realize that's not amplitude vs reserve time.

Thanks, we both understand what accuracy alone means.

For the many daily guests who read this thread without posting, 70 (!) just at this moment, I want to repeat the following important points:

(1) Accuracy of any 32xx watch is NOT the criteria to decide if the caliber has the low amplitude issue or not.
(2) The amplitudes, especially in the three vertical positions, are the main criteria.
(3) This also applies to the new 2023 watches with 4131, 7140, and 9002 calibers, which all have the Rolex Chronergy escapement.


EEpro, do you remember 4668 and 4669? Just kidding, could not resist

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Thanks, we both understand what accuracy alone means.

For the many daily guests who read this thread without posting, 70 (!) just at this moment, I want to repeat the following important points:

(1) Accuracy of any 32xx watch is NOT the criteria to decide if the caliber has the low amplitude issue or not.
(2) The amplitudes, especially in the three vertical positions, are the main criteria.
(3) This also applies to the new 2023 watches with 4131, 7140, and 9002 calibers, which all have the Rolex Chronergy escapement.


EEpro, do you remember 4668 and 4669? Just kidding, could not resist

I posted that line to avoid the speech, but there it is.

[Goatrope]

1 of 70, checking in.

This is pretty much the only thread I read on this forum. I think it was over a year ago I decided to pick up a 216570 instead of a 226570 based on what Ive learned here, and I'm happy I did.

If I got "the call" today, I'd decline any 32xx model.

I don't typically post comments here because I don't have any factual content to add, only my opinions, and I greatly appreciate those experts who have provided facts and data.

1 of 70, back to lurking.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Goatrope

1 of 70, checking in.

This is pretty much the only thread I read on this forum. I think it was over a year ago I decided to pick up a 216570 instead of a 226570 based on what Ive learned here, and I'm happy I did.

If I got "the call" today, I'd decline any 32xx model.

I don't typically post comments here because I don't have any factual content to add, only my opinions, and I greatly appreciate those experts who have provided facts and data.

1 of 70, back to lurking.

Best post (w/o data) since a long time, thanks for checking in!

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by EEpro

I posted that line to avoid the speech, but there it is.

Not a speech but explaining what your "most accurate" means for 32xx and other Rolex Chronergy escapements - nothing!

[EvanRey]

Hi all,

I'd like to add my own experience to this thread as a datapoint.

I have an early 2022 126711CHNR. It kept near-perfect time for roughly the first year of ownership. Around that time I began to notice a variance of maybe 30 seconds a week. Didn't think much of it as I was unaware of the 3258 issues.

Fast forward to the last couple months, I noticed a more significant -15s /day issue. Then it increased to losing minutes a day.

Fortunately, I have a great AD with watchmakers on staff. I took it in and was told it's reading < 120º amplitude DD and -3m /day. Sent off to RSC and will report back with what I hear.

Watch is worn very regularly, but not worn in a way that would subject it to unusual stress. Never had a bad knock or drop.

[Toshk]

Superlative Chonometers eh

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by EvanRey

Hi all,

I'd like to add my own experience to this thread as a datapoint.

I have an early 2022 126711CHNR. It kept near-perfect time for roughly the first year of ownership. Around that time I began to notice a variance of maybe 30 seconds a week. Didn't think much of it as I was unaware of the 3258 issues.

Fast forward to the last couple months, I noticed a more significant -15s /day issue. Then it increased to losing minutes a day.

Fortunately, I have a great AD with watchmakers on staff. I took it in and was told it's reading < 120º amplitude DD and -3m /day. Sent off to RSC and will report back with what I hear.

Watch is worn very regularly, but not worn in a way that would subject it to unusual stress. Never had a bad knock or drop.

Thanks for sharing your experience report and welcome to TRF!

Unfortunately, nothing rare. Your 3285 was running perfectly when new in early 2022. The caliber issue became visible (for you, without instrumentation) after about a year. After 2.5 years it is -3 min/day with < 120° amplitude in DD.

It's interesting to hear, but not in the way most people would think, that your watch was worn regularly.

After the repair, you won't hear anything useful from RSC, except something like "movement control". Did your AD acknowledge to know about the 32xx issues?

The only interesting part for us in this thread would be to measure the amplitudes and rates in all 5 positions, after the RSC repair. Why is that interesting? It would show us what RSC can do these days (mid-2024) when they try to fix a defect 3285 caliber watch, not the rates but the amplitudes!

If you read the thread, you'll see that timekeeping is NOT the primary observable for 32xx calibers. I'm mostly interested in the amplitudes after full winding (t = 0) and after 24 hours (t = 24) at rest in dial

If you read the thread you will know that timekeeping is not the primary observable for 32xx calibers but amplitudes after full winding (t =0) and after 24 hours (t = 24) at rest in dial up. We have a procedure how to do such measurements, for example summarized (in much detail) in post #5002.

Good luck, please let us know if you will buy a timegrapher to participate with 2024 repair data (or not).

[belutak]

Brand new Sub losing 4sec / day update after second RSC visit within 4 weeks:

This time I took it to RSC in Melbourne. Here are their measurements before and after tuning. No parts were replaced.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Easy E]

I’m not really qualified to say, but looking at your pre v post amplitude values against rate I would guess this watch just had a regulation adjustment.

[Poodlopogus]

Apologies if this is the wrong thread for this question, but I'm curious: What's the relationship, if any, between amplitude and frequency?

Something interesting I've noticed: Aside from Tudor, just about every watch smaller than 40mm but with a PR over 60hr, has a reduced frequency. Omega is 3.5hz, Blancpain is 3, Tissot Powermatic is 3hz, and so on. Seems like there is a frequency-for-PR tradeoff (though for some, no sacrifice in precision).

So the question is: What would have happened, theoretically, had Rolex reduced the frequency of the 32xx to 3hz ro 3.5? Would that have had any effect on the "issue" this thread pertains to?

[digiwatch]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Do you intend to post an update on your measurements?

Yes, I do. Sorry about the delay, spent the last 2 weeks hiking The Mighty 5 in Utah :)

Here are the measurements for the Submariner until 72 hours after the full wind.

And as a bonus the first measurements of the new Tudor Black Bay with the METAS movement.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Poodlopogus

Apologies if this is the wrong thread for this question, but I'm curious: What's the relationship, if any, between amplitude and frequency?

Something interesting I've noticed: Aside from Tudor, just about every watch smaller than 40mm but with a PR over 60hr, has a reduced frequency. Omega is 3.5hz, Blancpain is 3, Tissot Powermatic is 3hz, and so on. Seems like there is a frequency-for-PR tradeoff (though for some, no sacrifice in precision).

So the question is: What would have happened, theoretically, had Rolex reduced the frequency of the 32xx to 3hz ro 3.5? Would that have had any effect on the "issue" this thread pertains to?

Good observations.
Only Rolex can possibly answer your question if they have explored that possibility when developing the Chronergy escapement.

It's interesting to note that Omega originally set up the Co-axial to run at 4 hz but it worked out to be problematic, so they ended up slowing it down to 3.5 hz which is the frequency that Daniels had worked out as the best originally and designed it to operate like that.

Yes, there is indeed a relationship between power reserve and frequency.
A lower frequency may not be as accurate as gravity and inertia are more influential on the Balance but the movement may also last longer in terms of lifespan and go longer between services, but higher frequencies typically yield better accuracy.
There are a good many competing factors that come into play which have to be juggled in pursuit of watch timekeeping improvements

[Poodlopogus]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Good observations.
Only Rolex can possibly answer your question if they have explored that possibility when developing the Chronergy escapement.

It's interesting to note that Omega originally set up the Co-axial to run at 4 hz but it worked out to be problematic, so they ended up slowing it down to 3.5 hz which is the frequency that Daniels had worked out as the best originally and designed it to operate like that.

Yes, there is indeed a relationship between power reserve and frequency.
A lower frequency may not be as accurate as gravity and inertia are more influential on the Balance but the movement may also last longer in terms of lifespan and go longer between services, but higher frequencies typically yield better accuracy.
There are a good many competing factors that come into play which have to be juggled in pursuit of watch timekeeping improvements

I'd always been aware of the relationship (at least the theoretical one) between frequency and accuracy, and I'm guessing that historically it was a more direct, causal one, and for lower-end watches, it seems to endure (guessing there's a reason that Tissot's COSC pieces use a lower-PR, non-Powermatic movement).

However, with the likes of Blancpain and Omega opting for lower frequency, yet achieving outstanding accuracy, one must wonder if frequency is as indicative of accuracy as it once was.

The observation about the original Co-Axial is also interesting, since it was based on a stock ETA that already had 4hz frequency. Besides demonstrating that different technologies may be best paired with different frequencies, it also suggests, at least anecdotally, that it's not a good idea to try and slap a new escapement onto an existing movement, and that they should be designed from the ground up (which Tudor did).

I would hope that this was part of Rolex's calculation (and deemed irrelevant) because the vanity metric of hertz (more of which do not, in fact, add inches to one's... well, you know...) would be a silly one to sacrifice reliability for.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by digiwatch

Here are the measurements for the Submariner until 72 hours after the full wind.

Thanks for the update and the graphs. The timegrapher data for your Submariner 124060 (3230) look very good.

It is noticeable that the three vertical (9U, 6U, 3U) anplitude numbers are almost identical for each data set (t = 0,12,24,36,48,60’hours).

How long did you measure in each individual position and which timegrapher do you use?

[digiwatch]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Thanks for the update and the graphs. The timegrapher data for your Submariner 124060 (3230) look very good.

It is noticeable that the three vertical (9U, 6U, 3U) anplitude numbers are almost identical for each data set (t = 0,12,24,36,48,60’hours).

How long did you measure in each individual position and which timegrapher do you use?

I'm using the Weishi 1900. The process that I use:

• fully wind the watch
• let it sit for ~10 minutes on the timegrapher in dial-up position
• run the measurement for 2 minutes, stop the timegrapher and note down the metrics
• move the watch to the new position, and wait 2 minutes for it to settle
• repeat the measurement cycle

The timegrapher settings:

• Lift angle: 53.0
• Period: 12s

[Lol-x]

Amplitude only needs to be 190 degrees for automatic watches!! Anything more is a bonus!!

[Andad]

Originally Posted by Lol-x

Amplitude only needs to be 190 degrees for automatic watches!! Anything more is a bonus!!

[maratka]

Originally Posted by Poodlopogus

I'd always been aware of the relationship (at least the theoretical one) between frequency and accuracy, and I'm guessing that historically it was a more direct, causal one, and for lower-end watches, it seems to endure (guessing there's a reason that Tissot's COSC pieces use a lower-PR, non-Powermatic movement).

However, with the likes of Blancpain and Omega opting for lower frequency, yet achieving outstanding accuracy, one must wonder if frequency is as indicative of accuracy as it once was.

The observation about the original Co-Axial is also interesting, since it was based on a stock ETA that already had 4hz frequency. Besides demonstrating that different technologies may be best paired with different frequencies, it also suggests, at least anecdotally, that it's not a good idea to try and slap a new escapement onto an existing movement, and that they should be designed from the ground up (which Tudor did).

I would hope that this was part of Rolex's calculation (and deemed irrelevant) because the vanity metric of hertz (more of which do not, in fact, add inches to one's... well, you know...) would be a silly one to sacrifice reliability for.

The problem is that to maintain accuracy and compensate for magnetic influences, the only solution when reducing the frequency of the watch movement is to use silicon. This is precisely what has enabled watches under a thousand euros to receive the COSC certification. Will the "larger" 32xx series movements use silicon? I think not, otherwise, any shock resistance would be out of the question. Blancpain - silicon. Omega... well, again silicon, but there they have the coaxial escapement, so it's somewhat different.