32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[maratka]

I write a translation of quotes from a very famous watchmaker.

Rolex indeed ventured into the holy of holies - recalculating the escapement. If you can't do it, don't try! The pallet fork stones have become thinner, resulting in a shortened impulse plane to increase the power reserve, which has led to increased loads on the pallet surfaces and faster oil wear. Essentially, cleaning the escapement solves the problem temporarily. It is well known that the 32xx series lags in amplitude even behind the 3135. If the caliber gets up to 250 degrees, that's good, but it may not exceed 220 degrees overall, which is somewhat concerning. A one-day test does not show a drop below 200 degrees, and the accuracy deviation can be 2-5 seconds in position, with an amplitude spread of 20 degrees, indicating that the mechanism operates well at low amplitude. However, there is also a two-day test that is not commonly done. It's worth noting that Rolex isn't alone in this; another company that can be considered a manufacture with a significant share of its own parts, Seiko, also does not excel in mechanisms with high amplitude.

Regarding mainsprings, it's a global fiasco. Rolex wasn't the first to start; in fact, replacing the entire barrel assembly has almost become a standard among the Swiss. On one hand, such precision and power reserve requirements never existed before, with ETA making entry-level calibers with over 70 hours of power reserve and almost chronometer accuracy, taking mass-market watches to another level. On the other hand, the life of the mechanism will end when the barrels and other parts, which have become consumables, run out. Past experience shows this can happen quite quickly. Additionally, the cost of servicing watches has significantly increased over the past decade. Now, a whole list of rather expensive parts needs replacing, not to mention the cost of upgrading the watch, as was the case with Zenith Elite and El Primero. A rather shameful situation occurred, for example, with the instant calendar in El Primero. Initially, a fragile spring was replaced with a steel part resembling a rabbit's head with ears, and then they recommend not installing any parts at all, effectively turning the instant calendar into a non-instant one, even more crude than in the Valjoux 7750.

I think the caliber will face the fate of the 30th caliber, which also did not succeed and had several clearly unsuccessful aspects. They will either release a deep update of the 32nd caliber with changes to its basic characteristics, or they will introduce the 33rd caliber right away.

Costs for testing began to decrease as early as the 1990s with the introduction of warranty periods, shifting some responsibility for testing and identifying hidden defects onto the owner. However, there were still companies conducting serious tests, such as LeCoultre's 1000-hour tests.

Rolex also spent a long time developing calibers. Recall, for instance, the quartz caliber 52**, which was created, tested for many years, and then the project was terminated. I believe they also tried to extensively test the 32** calibers, but perhaps these times make it difficult to thoroughly and meticulously test a large number of watches over a long period.

I don't think the issue with the 32** series is universal; it's more well-known. Few remember, but there was also the caliber 3186 with a similarly well-known issue, which didn't become widespread but was indeed discussed. Rolex simply produces too many watches, which are bought by too many people, many of whom are active online, providing fodder for discussion even when there are only a few dozen incidents involving watches. It's likely that the 32** series was unfortunate to appear in the era of social media, where everything is visible. Hence, such negativity towards the caliber, although I believe that problematic watches during the warranty period are few percent, if not less. Usually, a decrease in amplitude does not lead to a loss of accuracy for this caliber, so the owner remains unaware of the internal processes of the watch, wearing it calmly until the scheduled service.

The caliber clearly has issues with amplitude. During initial authenticity checks, the average amplitude typically does not exceed 220-230 degrees in fairly new watches, and in some positions, it approaches psychologically low 200 degrees. As I mentioned, accuracy begins to suffer in a small percentage of watches, and low amplitude is a direct hallmark of this caliber. It's worth noting that accuracy is primarily determined by the balance itself, not the escapement. If the balance is isochronous, its accuracy will not depend on the amplitude. This has been the main goal of the past 200 years — to create a perfect isochronous balance independent of amplitude, a task that has only been tackled successfully in recent years. However, there are lubrication conditions where a dramatic decrease in amplitude can allow external factors to influence the balance and affect timekeeping accuracy.

I did not suggest that the escapement is incorrectly calculated; rather, I emphasized that it is a sacrosanct component that has seen minimal change since 1840, when anchor escapements began mass use. Experiments with escapements ended long ago, and for the past 100 years, the escapement proportions have remained consistent in all modern watches. No improvement in escapement has led to any advantages. In the past 200 years, no new escapement has gained acceptance except the quartz movement. Even the coaxial escapement can hardly be considered a true alternative; it does not outperform the anchor escapement in any position and often lags significantly behind in several cases.

History has shown that changes to the anchor escapement are not sustainable, especially those affecting torque transmission. It is based on this observation that I doubted the success of Rolex's recalibration of the escapement, especially after seeing its condition in watches around a year old, which resembles that of watches with the standard classic escapement after five years. This was the first warning sign, and now there is feedback from other watchmakers indicating that the decision is highly controversial and clearly not in Rolex's typical style.

By the way, I will note that the 4130 movement is also undergoing significant upgrades. Watches now feature wheels with zero-play toothed gears, meaning the teeth are spring-loaded. However, the history of such teeth does not speak of their exceptional reliability. Considering this is the chronograph wheel, which experiences considerable stress during reset, I am patient and observe how this story develops.

Additionally, the Yacht-Master chronograph caliber has also become significantly more complex, adjusting one of Rolex's most important principles, serviceability. Initially, calibers were designed so that disassembly and inspection of individual components could be done without complete dismantling. The Yacht-Master chronograph clearly stands out from this list; the caliber is very difficult to service without appropriate documentation.

Rolex's policies are clearly changing, and I believe this is also linked to the fact that the mechanical watch market has significantly contracted. It is simply impossible now to operate under the old rules.