32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[Poodlopogus]

Originally Posted by maratka

My personal opinion, and also after talking to the aforementioned master: I am almost certain that the actual number of people who claim under warranty is negligible, possibly those who write here are only 0.000001% of all owners. The service costs for Rolex? Negligibly small. Will they solve the problem? Most likely yes, but it's also possible that they will simply wave it off, and this tiny percentage (that is, us) will have to claim within the 5-year warranty period. So what? Some will fall under the 2-year post-service warranty. These are not expenses, they are crumbs on the table.

I believe that a new movement will be released taking into account the experience of the 32xx caliber, and I want to believe that our caliber will not be abandoned. Will it be possible to upgrade to the new caliber? I am sure not. I am confident that they will never bring this issue up for discussion.

I think you are 100% correct for a few reasons:

1. Regardless of what this thread has become about, an even smaller fraction of people measure the amplitude of their watches; it simply doesn't matter (which is why it's only an internal metric of performance, not an advertised one).

2. One must wear the watch, not keep it in a safe, to notice.

3. The watch must be worn regularly. Those who wear them sporadically or rotate watches frequently (w/o using a winder) will never experience enough time loss to notice.

4. The watch must remain un-reset over similarly long periods, so frequent travelers (not using a GMT function) are unlikely to experience enough time loss to notice.

5. One must use their watch for time-telling, vs. referring to their phone despite having said watch on their wrist, to notice.

[belutak]

Originally Posted by 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.

Not so fast !
After keeping +0.5s/d after the second tuning fir one week only, it lost 4s over a single night with the dial up!
Now losing 1s/d for the last three days.

Draw your own conclusions… but it will go back to RSC for the third time in 5 weeks.
Superlative Chronometer -bull.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[padi56]

Wow lost a whole 4 seconds out of 86400 seconds in a day and in different positions all mechanical movements will slightly differ in accuracy to the exact second.

[enjoythemusic]

Are we there yet?

[JMGoodnight369]

Originally Posted by padi56

Wow lost a whole 4 seconds out of 86400 seconds in a day and in different positions all mechanical movements will slightly differ in accuracy to the exact second.

I don’t think this thread is for you. This thread is for us to discuss the well known issues with the 32xx movement as well as logging and comparing data. We all know how many seconds are in a day. Thanks for your contribution

[Robbie68]

Just adding in a little data, not comprehensive by any means.
I have a 2024 Sub LV purchased June 15th. I’ve owned many Rolex and currently have a 16600 and 116600, never any issues. I was fully aware of the possible issues with the 32 movement but figured it was probably a small percentage and more than likely fixed by now.
Anyway, as follows:
0H DU amp 270 BE .02 s/d 0. 3U amp 212 BE 0.3 s/d -4. 9U amp 215 BE 0.3 s/d -3
36H DU 230 BE 0.2 s/d +1. 3U amp 178 BE 0.4 s/d -12. 9U amp 182 BE 0.8 s/d -14
I initially checked after putting the watch on my winder as after running about +1 on the wrist it dropped about 25 seconds in a handful of days. Timing was done on a Weishi 1900, 53 degrees 12 sec etc etc. I wasn’t able to do a 24 hr due to work.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Robbie68

Just adding in a little data, not comprehensive by any means.
I have a 2024 Sub LV purchased June 15th. I’ve owned many Rolex and currently have a 16600 and 116600, never any issues. I was fully aware of the possible issues with the 32 movement but figured it was probably a small percentage and more than likely fixed by now.
Anyway, as follows:
0H DU amp 270 BE .02 s/d 0. 3U amp 212 BE 0.3 s/d -4. 9U amp 215 BE 0.3 s/d -3
36H DU 230 BE 0.2 s/d +1. 3U amp 178 BE 0.4 s/d -12. 9U amp 182 BE 0.8 s/d -14
I initially checked after putting the watch on my winder as after running about +1 on the wrist it dropped about 25 seconds in a handful of days. Timing was done on a Weishi 1900, 53 degrees 12 sec etc etc. I wasn’t able to do a 24 hr due to work.

Thanks for joining this thread with some first data.

Repeat the timegrapher measurements at t = 0,12,24,36,48,60 hours, each time in 5 positions (DU, DD, 6U, 9U, 3U), and please come back with all the numbers sorted in a table!

With so many data points I can check the isochronism of your caliber.

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

Are we there yet?

The journey is the destination

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by Easy E

The journey is the destination

Make each day count

[saxo3]

A short review about 32xx watches bought and measured in 2024.

Since January 2024, five new 32xx watches, all bought this year, have been presented in this thread, together with a set of timegrapher data. The results on amplitudes are summarized in my table below.



All watches were measured along the power reserve, while one watch (SUB 3235, maratka) was measured only for the first 24 hours after full winding. This one is not included in the study presented below.

Apart from good amplitude values do these calibers differ and can one find out? The answer is yes if one looks at the caliber isochronism. A description of isochronism and how such an analysis is done can be found in my post 3647.

Basically, I look at the average amplitudes (Xamplitude) and average rates (Xrates) and how they change along the power reserve. Perfect isochronism means that Xrates remains unchanged while Xamplitudes decreases with time.

I plotted the published data and did a linear fit of the numbers to derive the slope 'm'. Some 32xx calibers show a significant deviation from linearity at lower amplitude of about 180°. Therefore, I limited the isochronism fits to 48 h after full winding.

The results are displayed in the graph below. For better understanding, in simple words: the highest the slope value 'm' (of the linear data fit) the better the isochronism of the movement is.



I find significant differences in isochronism between these 2024 watches: the best one is the 3230 (Penelope2017), followed by the 3235 (EasyE), while the 3230 (digiwatch) isochronism curve is not linear. The 3285 (EasyE) is the worst in amplitudes and isochronism.

Interesting that my Sea-Dweller (3235), bought in 2017 and repaired in 2022, has better amplitude and isochronism values than some of the new 2024 watches.

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by saxo3

I find significant differences in isochronism between these 2024 watches: the best one is the 3230 (Penelope2017), followed by the 3235 (EasyE), while the 3230 (digiwatch) isochronism curve is not linear. The 3285 (EasyE) is the worst in amplitudes and isochronism.

Interesting that my Sea-Dweller (3235), bought in 2017 and repaired in 2022, has better amplitude and isochronism values than some of the new 2024 watches.

So, 1. how is it that a serviced piece has better performance than the new ones? 2. How does one reconcile that I have one decent and one pretty terrible 2024 example?

[JMGoodnight369]

Originally Posted by Easy E

So, 1. how is it that a serviced piece has better performance than the new ones? 2. How does one reconcile that I have one decent and one pretty terrible 2024 example?

Although I don’t have a time graphed to add data, I too have a watch that has ran flawlessly since it was repaired last year. It is a 2021 124060 that ran awful right from the AD. It took me a few months to get it up to NYC to drop it off but since I got it back last April it has ran the exact same with keeping up with a basic timing app. I have a 2024 BLRO that runs kind of all over the place. Keeping an eye on it.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by JMGoodnight369

Although I don’t have a time graphed to add data, I too have a watch that has ran flawlessly since it was repaired last year. It is a 2021 124060 that ran awful right from the AD. It took me a few months to get it up to NYC to drop it off but since I got it back last April it has ran the exact same with keeping up with a basic timing app. I have a 2024 BLRO that runs kind of all over the place. Keeping an eye on it.

You follow this thread, since 01/2022, 18 posts. You own 32xx watches for about $20,000. Why you don't buy a $200 timegrapher to analyse the movements?

Your new GMT-Master II Ref. 126710BLRO (3285) is VERY interesting for this thread; the RSC repaired Submariner Ref. 124060 (3230) also.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Easy E

So, 1. how is it that a serviced piece has better performance than the new ones? 2. How does one reconcile that I have one decent and one pretty terrible 2024 example?

Nobody can answer your questions and I will not speculate.

[saxo3]

Update for the second graph in my post #5110.
The slope for EasyE's GMT (3285) is not m = 2.7°/s/d but m = 13.7°/s/d. Sorry for the typo.
All other values are unchanged. Here is the correct graph.

[digiwatch]

This is how my Submariner 3230 movement compares to the Tudor Black Bay MT5602-U. Unfortunately I wasn't home to at the 48 hour mark.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by digiwatch

This is how my Submariner 3230 movement compares to the Tudor Black Bay MT5602-U. Unfortunately I wasn't home to at the 48 hour mark.

Offscale, can't plot that
One more data point between 36 h and 60 h is important for an isochronism fit.
Don't get me started on other brands

[digiwatch]

I'll kick off a new testing cycle so that I have measurements 0, 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 hours. See you in a few days!

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by digiwatch

I'll kick off a new testing cycle so that I have measurements 0, 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 hours. See you in a few days!

That is interesting for you. I'm not going to amalyze your Tudor data because this is a Rolex 32xx thread. Anyhow, we already know the (very) good outcome for your Tudor

[Poodlopogus]

Curious, when a 32xx gets "sick" how long does it take for it to go from "slightly outside spec" (like -3 to -8) to wayyyy outside spec (like >-30)?

A month or so ago, mine went from averaging around +1 to averaging about -4.8. Happened pretty quickly. However something interesting I've noticed: looking at the graphs on the timekeeping app, this is by far the most consistent the watch has been day over day since the first six months of ownership.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Easy E

So, 1. how is it that a serviced piece has better performance than the new ones? 2. How does one reconcile that I have one decent and one pretty terrible 2024 example?

I have no answer to WHY your two 2024 watches are different, but WHAT is different.

Based on your timegrapher results, I have separated the horizontal from the vertical positions and anaylzed them separately. The nomenclature is as follows:

X: average rate or amplitude of all positions (DU, DD, 9U, 6U, 3U)

X (horizontal): average rate or amplitude of the 2 horizontal positions (DU, DD)

X (vertical): average rate or amplitude of the 3 vertical positions (9U, 6U, 3U)

A more detailed comparison of the SUB (3235) and GMT (3285) is shown in the 2 graphs below.

We can see that the isochronism of the horizontal positions is quite similar between the GMT and the SUB.

But the isochronism of the vertical positions is (much) worse for the GMT compared to the SUB.

In simple terms, the GMT (3285) loses more time in all vertical positions compared to the SUB (3235) as the amplitudes decrease. The GMT partially compensates for this in its horizontal positions, but not as well as the SUB.

There are two main problems with (sick) 32xx calibers:

(1)The amplitudes are too low after full winding.

(2) The isochronism in vertical positions is much worse than in horizontal positions, which leads (sooner or later) to significantly reduced (negative) rates, i.e., the watch loses time.

[digiwatch]

Originally Posted by saxo3

That is interesting for you. I'm not going to amalyze your Tudor data because this is a Rolex 32xx thread. Anyhow, we already know the (very) good outcome for your Tudor

I thought that it would make a good comparison to the Rolex movement, but you’re right, let’s stick to the 32xx issues in this thread. Thanks again for analyzing the data for us

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by digiwatch

I thought that it would make a good comparison to the Rolex movement, but you’re right, let’s stick to the 32xx issues in this thread. Thanks again for analyzing the data for us

It is not that I don't want to analyze your Tudor data!
You can measure and post the results.
Maybe I can find an interesting comparison with 31xx movements....

[Lucasslac]

Any news on the Sky 9002 calibre? Are they facing or tend to face the same issue? Or they are fine?

[Lucasslac]

Are the sky 9002 movements facing or tend to face this issue? Or they are fine?

[saxo3]

In this thread, no one has reported timegrapher results for the calibers 9002, 4131, 7140, which all have the Chronergy escapement, like the 32xx! My favourite and best candidate is EasyE.

[CedCraig]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Agreed.
We need to get our heads around it and accept it as part of the new world order of things. Especially when these assemblies are manufactured at very large scale.

To my knowledge.
Seiko have at least chosen to have movement calibres that will retrofit into the same cases as older discontinued calibres.
The swap for a newer calibres may be possible going forward for entire movements with Rolex if they're smart about it. Sort of a hot swap scenario for an easy/quick and dirty upgrade path. It's not like they have anything to prove with regard to the thickness of their movements.
Tudor are generally recognised as having it as a somewhat open secret within the industry in going down the hot swap path with their MT movements.
It's something i am still coming to terms with personally since having a good look at what they're doing in recent times.

It brings to mind.
What is happening with the old movements?
Are they being re-manufactured somehow, somewhere with a view to be fitted into another case at service time?
Is it economically feasable for them given a general lack of watchmaking expertise/training and volumes required?
Or are they thrown in the scrap metal bin?
To that, what of a sustainability factor if any?
Also is Quartz watch technology more sustainable and or practical overall?

The hot swap service model is why I’m not interested in Tudor.

When you send in your Tudor with a Kenissi movement for service your watch will get a refurbished movement. That refurbished movement came from some other Kenissi powered Tudor watch that was sent in for service. Your freshly serviced Tudor watch now has some other dude’s old movement in it. Your Kenissi movement in turn gets refurbished and then goes into some other watch that’s been sent in.

I understand that you can specifically request that Tudor service and repair your movement and put your movement back into your watch. But how would you know?

Now to some speculation. Given the very high costs of labor in Switzerland, it wouldn’t surprise me that Tudor sends the movements in need of service to a contractor in a cheaper country, maybe Romania or Bulgaria, to be refurbished. Those countries are relatively close by and have a good pool of cheaper, but still skilled, labor. Remember, Tudor is an outsourcing company and always has been. Tudor SA has never made a watch component, but have always sourced parts from (mostly Swiss) suppliers. Kenissi is a unique situation, teaming up with Chanel 80/20 financially to make movements for Tudor and seven other brands (Chanel, Breitling, Norquain, Fortis, TAG Heuer, Bell & Ross, Ultramarine).

I said quite a while ago that I think the 33xx movements will be released far sooner than a typical Rolex cycle and that the movement will have a silicon hairspring. I also think Rolex will hot swap the 33xx movements into watches with faulty 32xx movements.

Eventually (decades from now?), the release of the 32xx movement series will be seen as the end of Rolex as a traditional watchmaker, since some parts of the 32xx are already no longer serviceable but have to be replaced as a unit, and with the extension of the hot swap service model from Tudor to Rolex, “modular” watchmaking will have prevailed.

[enjoythemusic]

My Hamilton PSR MTX is years old and is only a second off. I'm really impressed with this accuracy

[Poodlopogus]

Originally Posted by CedCraig

The hot swap service model is why I’m not interested in Tudor.

When you send in your Tudor with a Kenissi movement for service your watch will get a refurbished movement. That refurbished movement came from some other Kenissi powered Tudor watch that was sent in for service. Your freshly serviced Tudor watch now has some other dude’s old movement in it. Your Kenissi movement in turn gets refurbished and then goes into some other watch that’s been sent in.

I understand that you can specifically request that Tudor service and repair your movement and put your movement back into your watch. But how would you know?

Now to some speculation. Given the very high costs of labor in Switzerland, it wouldn’t surprise me that Tudor sends the movements in need of service to a contractor in a cheaper country, maybe Romania or Bulgaria, to be refurbished. Those countries are relatively close by and have a good pool of cheaper, but still skilled, labor. Remember, Tudor is an outsourcing company and always has been. Tudor SA has never made a watch component, but have always sourced parts from (mostly Swiss) suppliers. Kenissi is a unique situation, teaming up with Chanel 80/20 financially to make movements for Tudor and seven other brands (Chanel, Breitling, Norquain, Fortis, TAG Heuer, Bell & Ross, Ultramarine).

I said quite a while ago that I think the 33xx movements will be released far sooner than a typical Rolex cycle and that the movement will have a silicon hairspring. I also think Rolex will hot swap the 33xx movements into watches with faulty 32xx movements.

Eventually (decades from now?), the release of the 32xx movement series will be seen as the end of Rolex as a traditional watchmaker, since some parts of the 32xx are already no longer serviceable but have to be replaced as a unit, and with the extension of the hot swap service model from Tudor to Rolex, “modular” watchmaking will have prevailed.

Has it been confirmed, as in someone calling/emailing Tudor service centre, that this is the practice (as opposed to fitting watches with entirely new movements)?

The swapping model makes the most sense if it's actually cheaper to manufacture an all-new movement (because of automation) than to repair an old one?

I also doubt that about sending to another country for refurbishment - that would mean letting parts/IP/etc. outside of a very closed ecosystem. That might make sense if Tudor still used almost-stock third-party movements, but Kenissi is essentially Tudor/Rolex IP.

[CedCraig]

Originally Posted by Poodlopogus

Has it been confirmed, as in someone calling/emailing Tudor service centre, that this is the practice (as opposed to fitting watches with entirely new movements)?

The swapping model makes the most sense if it's actually cheaper to manufacture an all-new movement (because of automation) than to repair an old one?

I also doubt that about sending to another country for refurbishment - that would mean letting parts/IP/etc. outside of a very closed ecosystem. That might make sense if Tudor still used almost-stock third-party movements, but Kenissi is essentially Tudor/Rolex IP.

The hot swap with refurbished Kenissi movements has been confirmed in some threads on TRF as far back as 2019 and 2022. WUS also had some threads. In addition, both the podcast The Grey NATO (one host works for Hodinkee and both hosts know a Tudor employee) and at least one article in Hodinkee have confirmed this. The idea is that service times can be reduced, but I don’t know that in practice that’s the case.

Those old hot swap threads remind me a bit of 32xx threads. People simply would not believe that Tudor would do such a thing. Maybe some of them were bummed that their Tudor now had someone else’s old movement running it. Other people didn’t seem to care.

Good point about keeping the IP close to home, so most likely the Kenissi side of the Tudor building has a refurbishing center.