32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[Vince_76]

Originally Posted by saxo3

WatchTracker

Thanks. Wish it was free. Downloaded ToolWatch

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Easy E

For kicks I ran my DD40 measurements out to 60hrs. I have done that previously on a couple of watches, including the DD40 prior to repair. So far I have found the 60hr readings to represent near useless rates and amplitudes. On my recently repaired DD40 the difference between pre and post service are rather distinct.

Pre 60hr AvgRate -26.12, AvgAmp 147.4

Post 60Hr AvgRate -6.36, AvgAmp 159.6

FWIW

Well done, interesting to measure all 5 positions beyond 48 hours after full winding, 24 is for rookies.

Significant caliber improvement after service; especially visible in the linearity of the updated isochronism graph (right plot).

[sheldonsmith]

Originally Posted by Vince_76

Thanks. Wish it was free. Downloaded ToolWatch

It’s worth the 10 bucks. I’ve used it for years without issue.

~ Sheldon

[Michael N Q8]

Some positive news.

I was an early contributor to this issue with my 2018 BLRO. It was serviced in Feb 21 (more than 2 years ago) and I have been using it on and off since then. I did a comparison in August 22 and it seemed to not have developed this issue at that stage. I then went through a Daytona wearing phase and neglected the BLRO for a while.

I have been wearing it a bit recently and I am relieved to say that it is not showing signs of this problem. While I have not done a set of readings over the power reserve range since Aug 22, I have been alternating it with my 116600 and it has been maintaining accuracy and some quick measurements are showing amplitude well above 200, small beat errors and around 1-2 sec per day which is confirmed with observations compared to an atomic clock.

I will take some more measurements to see what is happening over a full reserve, but it seems to be performing well now. Holding thumbs...

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Michael N Q8

Some positive news.

I was an early contributor to this issue with my 2018 BLRO. It was serviced in Feb 21 (more than 2 years ago) and I have been using it on and off since then. I did a comparison in August 22 and it seemed to not have developed this issue at that stage. I then went through a Daytona wearing phase and neglected the BLRO for a while.

I have been wearing it a bit recently and I am relieved to say that it is not showing signs of this problem. While I have not done a set of readings over the power reserve range since Aug 22, I have been alternating it with my 116600 and it has been maintaining accuracy and some quick measurements are showing amplitude well above 200, small beat errors and around 1-2 sec per day which is confirmed with observations compared to an atomic clock.

I will take some more measurements to see what is happening over a full reserve, but it seems to be performing well now. Holding thumbs...

Welcome back Michael,

Thanks for joining again with an update and good news.

Your 126710BLRO (3285) runs fine 25 months after repair.
I remember you bought it in June 2018, now 3 months guarantee left, right?

My 126600 (3235) needed a second repair 35 months after the first repair.
I see you also own a 126600?

Time to upgrade from your iPhone app and get some reliable timegrapher (~200 $) data measured before the end of the BLRO warranty?

[Seo]

Slightly off topic but there is a funny screen shot from Rolex marketing “defying excellence”

I do not know how to attach photos in this forum.

[Toshk]

Originally Posted by Seo

Slightly off topic but there is a funny screen shot from Rolex marketing “defying excellence”

I do not know how to attach photos in this forum.

Spare us the irony

[saxo3]

Source: Rolex.com

[whatsthetime?]

Originally Posted by Seo

Slightly off topic but there is a funny screen shot from Rolex marketing “defying excellence”. I do not know how to attach photos in this forum.

I posted it here regarding my belief that the 32xx was released in 2020.

[Seo]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Source: Rolex.com

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Source: Rolex.com

Brutal

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by JMGoodnight369

Yeah I’ll actually look at them to buy. I avoided back when I started collecting as I’m one of those people that get obsessive with keeping track of accuracy so I knew getting a timegrapher would be a black hole for me. It would be handy to have with two 32xx movements. Also I agree with you that they probably didn’t fix it. I’m sure it was just a bandaid. I spoke with a watchmaker here in Ga last year. Charlie Shi is his name and he had a very long career (30+ years) and a watchmaker and then went out on his own. Anyway I had a long conversation with him about the 32xx and he absolutely hates them and said it’ll never work. Apparently Patek gave the chronenergy escapement a shot back in the 70s and it only last one reference and then they abandoned it. I know a lot on here talk about it being lubricant based issues but he argued that it is the design of the pallet fork and jewels. He actually showed me a photo of one he had worked on and it looked to be there was chips on the escapement wheel. I’ll see if I can find that photo still

I’ve already posted this before, but here’s an interesting article about the 32xx movement and how it relates it to an old Seiko design and the Patek Pulsomax. Good read for anyone invested in this thread:

https://watchesbysjx.com/2021/05/rol...-analysis.html

[Andad]

Looks straight forward to me Douglas but what is the problem with these movements?

Do we need any more graphs to confirm an issue?

[Seo]

Amazing how poorly the marketing team translated.

I feel the amplitude to timing graph is interesting. All my healthy watches do the opposite.

Of course we don’t fully know the root cause. None of us are watch engineers. Archer from the other forum simply said design issue. This makes sense as per what Bas has reported. Full service and still low amp for some of the movements.

[Seo]

Originally Posted by SearChart

The issue is known for years now, with plenty of evidence. People may choose to believe what they want, I'm not here to argue with anyone.

Hello Bas, does the 22xx have the same issues?

Any other movement from Rolex show similar issues like 32xx?

[Seo]

Hello Saxo do you have a power reserve x timing graph of a healthy 31xx?

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Seo

I feel the amplitude to timing graph is interesting. All my healthy watches do the opposite.

What do you mean with 'opposite'?

[Seo]

Originally Posted by saxo3

What do you mean with 'opposite'?

As the pr runs lower and amp decreases my timing gets a little bit quicker. Repeat measure every 12 hours using watch tracker with watch left dial up static.

Right at the end then it goes very slow but only right at the end of the pr.

My problematic dj did very similar to your graphs. Timing slower and slower as pr runs out from full wind.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Seo

As the pr runs lower and amp decreases my timing gets a little bit quicker. Repeat measure every 12 hours using watch tracker with watch left dial up static.

Right at the end then it goes very slow but only right at the end of the pr.

My problematic dj did very similar to your graphs. Timing slower and slower as pr runs out from full wind.

Your observation is different from the shown isochronism graphs: they display the average rates and average amplitudes along the power reserve. That is not the same.

What you describe I also observe for all watches that are regulated with a positive rate in dial up position.

The watch continuously gains time because it always remains in DU. When the power reserve gets very low then the caliber slows down as you describe. I posted an example for a 3235 long time ago in this thread.

[saxo3]

@Seo I just found the 'old' graph ...

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by Seo

Hello Bas, does the 22xx have the same issues?

Any other movement from Rolex show similar issues like 32xx?

It does not. The 22xx is generally a fine movement, especially the 2236 with Si hairpspring and more power reserve.

[Annan]

For Saxo, Bas, Charles and all the other "experts" on this thread. I appreciate your efforts and thank you. Saw this cartoon and thought it was good for a laugh for all of us.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by Andad

Do we need any more graphs to confirm an issue?

The house is on fire. The fire department has been called. While they are finishing their dinners and trying to figure out where they stored the hoses we're going to deploy thermocouples around the house to see if the flames are, in fact, causing harmful levels of heat. Will have to get back to you on whether or not peak data has been achieved yet. Come to think of it, we might actually need more data to answer that. Hope that helps!

[Seo]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Your observation is different from the shown isochronism graphs: they display the average rates and average amplitudes along the power reserve. That is not the same.

What you describe I also observe for all watches that are regulated with a positive rate in dial up position.

The watch continuously gains time because it always remains in DU. When the power reserve gets very low then the caliber slows down as you describe. I posted an example for a 3235 long time ago in this thread.

No the rate gets faster for instance 0-24 hr the watch is about +2 per day but 24-48 the watch is about 3-4 s per day.

The second 24 hour period appear to have a faster rate not just overall timing.

[Seo]

Originally Posted by SearChart

It does not. The 22xx is generally a fine movement, especially the 2236 with Si hairpspring and more power reserve.

Thank you for this.

[atxwatch]

Originally Posted by SearChart

It does not. The 22xx is generally a fine movement, especially the 2236 with Si hairpspring and more power reserve.

Let's hope you are right. My wife's 10 month old OP with 22xx just came back from Rolex factory service after 2+ months. It had super low amplitude and was running very erratically. Let's hope it is fixed for good.

[Seo]

Originally Posted by atxwatch

Let's hope you are right. My wife's 10 month old OP with 22xx just came back from Rolex factory service after 2+ months. It had super low amplitude and was running very erratically. Let's hope it is fixed for good.

Oh no that’s terrible to hear.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Seo

No the rate gets faster for instance 0-24 hr the watch is about +2 per day but 24-48 the watch is about 3-4 s per day.

The second 24 hour period appear to have a faster rate not just overall timing.

Understood, I measured that also for a 3130 caliber.



I have nice graphs also for this effect.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by atxwatch

Let's hope you are right. My wife's 10 month old OP with 22xx just came back from Rolex factory service after 2+ months. It had super low amplitude and was running very erratically. Let's hope it is fixed for good.

It is not the first time I hear that for a 22xx movement but have no own experience for this caliber.

Hopefully the issue will not appear again.

[Lost27]

Stumbled across this thread randomly and thought I'd share my recent data about my 226570 Explorer II with the 3285 movement. Purchased in April 2022, I haven't noticed too much out of spec with regards to gaining/losing time. It has been around -1 second per day and kept on a winder when not being worn.

The data was collected over the last 4 days starting with a full wind and measurements taken on a Weishi 1900 timegrapher, lift angle set at 53, about every 24 hours. During the measurement period when the watch was not on the timegrapher, it was left dial up.

Not sure if this data is indicative of a good or bad movement but just another set for folks to take a look at. Posting as a screen capture since there isn't a good way to insert a chart.