32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by shedlock2000

So I wanted to ask what @saxo3 and others think of the distribution of errors. I think we are roughly at 1/3 of 32xx movements being problematic. This implies that 2/3 are trouble free.

What can be deduced from this is:
1) That those that have reported no issues have not checked properly enough,
2) That some movements don't have the fault,
3) That some owners have not had theirs long enough for the issue to develop.

1) Assuming that some of the checked movements that havent been identified as faulty actually are, we could increase the error rate a bit to account and suggest that, perhaps, half of the movements are faulty -- but this brings us to 2)

If we accept 2), there are two possible causes of failure: build or manufacturing defect? Which also implies that:
a) if the fault is a component issue, then some movements are not fitted with the same batch of components, or
b) that the build of those movements are different than on other movements. a) suggests there is a batch-fault issue which is resolvable by new components while b) is resolvable by a rebuild.

That re-built movements seem to generate the same fault after a period of time implies either that there are consistent issues that specific movement, or that the batch of faulty components is big enough that it is taking time to use them up.

3) indicates that time will identify a greater percentage of faulty movements.

That 2/3 (or 1/2 if we are being generous) of movements are not faulty -- even given some leeway for improperly checked movements or those which are too new to have faulted yet -- implies there is not an inherent design issue (as such a design flaw would present in 100% of movements).

It doesn't imply that 2 out of 3 are trouble free.
It potentially implies that more than 2 out of three are having an issue when we factor in the possibility that not all owners are aware of a problem or simply don't even care

[CharlesN]

I have been measuring my Rolex Explorer II (226570 with a 3285 movement) for the past 53 days and logging all results on my iPhone app - WatchTracker.

The results are shown in the graph below.




I took two data readings a day … One in the morning and one in the evening.

My watch was always fully manually wound in the morning after taking a measurement and before I put it on.

The graph can be divided into 3 distinct periods …

The first period shows a steady loss in timekeeping.
During that period I was not active but my watch was manually fully would daily.
My watch was worn for about 16 hours per day and at rest usually Dial Up at night. I was mostly bed ridden so the watch was mostly in a vertical position during the day (3U, 6U, 9U).

The second period of interest is for the following 3 weeks.
During this period I was far more active. My watch was still manually wound once per day.
But, as I was more active the position of the watch changed far more (DU, DD, 3U, 6U, 9U).
The two horizontal positions (DU, DD) were far more common I suspect.

The third period of interest, the last 2 weeks shows an increase in timekeeping. My watch was still manually wound once per day but the wearing hours were reduced to approximately 8 hours per day and the horizontal position for when not being worn increased to approximately 16 hours per day.

These results show that winding or wearing and winding the watch has no effect on my watch. It was sufficiently manually wound throughout the period.

What it does show is that the wrist position whilst being worn is all important to timekeeping.

This is as supported the Witschi Chronoscope results as shown below.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

I have been measuring my Rolex Explorer II (226570 with a 3285 movement) for the past 53 days and logging all results on my iPhone app - WatchTracker.

The results are shown in the graph below.




I took two data readings a day … One in the morning and one in the evening.

My watch was always fully manually wound in the morning after taking a measurement and before I put it on.

The graph can be divided into 3 distinct periods …

The first period shows a steady loss in timekeeping.
During that period I was not active but my watch was manually fully would daily.
My watch was worn for about 16 hours per day and at rest usually Dial Up at night. I was mostly bed ridden so the watch was mostly in a vertical position during the day (3U, 6U, 9U).

The second period of interest is for the following 3 weeks.
During this period I was far more active. My watch was still manually wound once per day.
But, as I was more active the position of the watch changed far more (DU, DD, 3U, 6U, 9U).
The two horizontal positions (DU, DD) were far more common I suspect.

The third period of interest, the last 2 weeks shows an increase in timekeeping. My watch was still manually wound once per day but the wearing hours were reduced to approximately 8 hours per day and the horizontal position for when not being worn increased to approximately 16 hours per day.

These results show that winding or wearing and winding the watch has no effect on my watch. It was sufficiently manually wound throughout the period.

What it does show is that the wrist position whilst being worn is all important to timekeeping.

This is as supported the Witschi Chronoscope results as shown below.

Nice to read a contribution with factual content and an explaining graph, probably far above what can be expected, understood, and discussed here.

Your systematic measurement is near scholar and leads to a very good understanding of your Explorer II.

One can learn that wrist positions (plus rest positions overnight) are very important for good timekeeping, also for a daily fully wound caliber. That is new in this thread.

In that sense the use of a timegrapher and the understanding of the results is demonstrated again.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by shedlock2000

So I wanted to ask what @saxo3 and others think of the distribution of errors.

The answer is simple: this poll does not provide a statistically relevant result because there are too many unknowns and any poll interpretation or conclusion (about the percentages) requires a set of assumptions that no one can verify or falsify.

The 32xx problems exist, on a large scale and for several years, there is no doubt about that fact. It is more common than some on this forum want to hear or accept.

[dlrolex]

perhaps I will stick with ETA 2824

[saxo3]

This thread is running now since 21 months.

Here is a graphical display, together with the corresponding numbers, about the outcome so far.





Two (at least) interesting points, which have not changed since my last statistics update in January 2021 (post # 2229, page 75):

The quantity of 32xx watch owners that observe and report issues with their movements did not decrease over time but remained rather constant at a level of about 28 – 30 %.

There are still 4 times more poll voters than different contributors to the thread. That means the majority voted but did not post in this thread.

[Dirt]

There is no doubt about how abnormally prevalent the problem is.
On this forum and others, there is tons of conbined anecdotal evidence based on many years of ownership of watches which is not necessarily limited to Rolex watches to draw from.
We have deep insight from someone within the system with pictures and more than enough explanations around it going back through the Dark-years until 2018, complete with an account of greatly increased resources being put into it at RSC's.
We have quiet admissions from the retail end that there may be increased warranty claims around this problem.
Also there is some insight from a fairly well known industry insider, that the problem is rather well known among watchmakers generally that are not necessarily attached to Rolex. They do talk with each other.

We will never be able to glean the deeper depths of the actual distribution of errors, of which there are sure to be many but the trend is made patently clear through this thread
I am confident nobody really enjoys this stuff because it reflects poorly on the new offerings from the crown as it currently stands with the exception of the other movements not covered by this thread. The other movements are reportedly(or lack there of) going just fine with or without minor/rountine updates and in accordance with Rolex historical norms(anecdotally speaking).

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by Dirt

We have quiet admissions from the retail end that there may be increased warranty claims around this problem.


Also there is some insight from a fairly well known industry insider, that the problem is rather well known among watchmakers generally that are not necessarily attached to Rolex. They do talk with each other.

Do you have a link or reference to these two points? I'd be curious to read more. On another forum I was in a discussion with a watchmaker (professionally trained by another large Swiss brand) who indicated his colleagues within RSC itself were overwhelmed and overworked trying to keep up with 32xx related issues. It sounded a bit alarming if accurate.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Do you have a link or reference to these two points? I'd be curious to read more. On another forum I was in a discussion with a watchmaker (professionally trained by another large Swiss brand) who indicated his colleagues within RSC itself were overwhelmed and overworked trying to keep up with 32xx related issues. It sounded a bit alarming if accurate.

Sorry, but I'm a little tech challenged in this regard.
In a way I kind of like it like that at my age

However, some say I do have a mind like a steel trap and can recall pertinent points, but references are unavailble unless you can do the Vulcan mind meld thing.
I can say that some of the info you are seeking is contained within this thread and other threads that are related to this matter on this forum.
Also, like yourself I get around and we possibly have crossed paths previously on other forums without being aware of it. So we are likely to be drawing on common sources due to our shared interest.
With regard to the second point you raise. We have had it here on this forum on two separate occassions from different sources quite a long time apart, also on another forum.

My apologies for not being able to help further in a manner that would be more constructive.

It's not necessarily alarming from my perspective, simply interesting.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by Dirt

My apologies for not being able to help further in a manner that would be more constructive.

It's not necessarily alarming from my perspective, simply interesting.

Understood, no apology necessary.

There have always been skeptics on here who take every opportunity to mock us for even paying attention to this stuff. And, understandably, there hasn't been much clarity on the actual scope of the issue (though I've long argued it's obviously far more prevalent than a "one in a million fluke"). But even I was "shocked" to imagine the problems being at a level where RSC staff are burning out and feeling hopeless. Clearly at that level reports would be making it back to HQ. How could there not be a solution at that point?

As I'm sure you know, the consensus from the naysayers has always been "if there's a problem, Rolex will make it right". There was the implication that if Rolex had not acted, it was probably just proof of how rare this problem was, or maybe that it didn't exist at all. But to imagine the scenario above, it is much harder to explain. Is this a fatal, non-fixable flaw? Or has the company simply changed its priorities to where making more watches trumps solving the problem?

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Understood, no apology necessary.

There have always been skeptics on here who take every opportunity to mock us for even paying attention to this stuff. And, understandably, there hasn't been much clarity on the actual scope of the issue (though I've long argued it's obviously far more prevalent than a "one in a million fluke"). But even I was "shocked" to imagine the problems being at a level where RSC staff are burning out and feeling hopeless. Clearly at that level reports would be making it back to HQ. How could there not be a solution at that point?

As I'm sure you know, the consensus from the naysayers has always been "if there's a problem, Rolex will make it right". There was the implication that if Rolex had not acted, it was probably just proof of how rare this problem was, or maybe that it didn't exist at all. But to imagine the scenario above, it is much harder to explain. Is this a fatal, non-fixable flaw? Or has the company simply changed its priorities to where making more watches trumps solving the problem?

If I had to guess I’d guess the burnout problem is simply due to the unanticipated increase in workload. Even if only 5% of watches had the problem, it’s tens of thousands more per year than likely anticipated.

As to the “quiet fix” issue, I don’t think much of the lack of communication. Yes, we’re often think in car analogies, but nobody potentially explodes here. There’s no safety issue if Rolex continues selling already-constructed movements that have a batch (or ten) of faulty parts distributed among them. Thinking probably is that less time and materials wasted fixing them one by one vs discarding our rebuilding thousands already produced and awaiting casing.

Convenience aside, it is highly likely that all that are destined to fail will do so under warranty, so the customer is out very little. It’s not like with cars where “well, it’s unlikely to start on fire, and even if it does, it’ll be a small fire, and we’ll repair it under warranty” is an entirely unacceptable position to take.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by dannyp

The 32xx also maintains good accuracy as the PR depletes (and, as I gather, the amplitude decreases along with it).

Yes.

Originally Posted by dannyp

So, we have people picking up watches that should be wound before wearing and strapping them on.

Yes, a full winding is probably done by most owners but maybe not everybody.

Originally Posted by dannyp

Perhaps doing this with any consistency causes some kind of unintended strain on the system?

I don't think so. The major 32xx issue is something else.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Yes, a full winding is probably done by most owners but maybe not everybody.

You think? I’d wager that most people who buy a Rolex, wear it, take it off for two days, look down and see it still running/keeping time will just buckle it back on and call it a day. Honestly, prior to hearing about this issue, I’d likely have been in that camp.

Maybe doing this regularly has no relationship with the “issue” but I thought it worth considering given it’s a somewhat unique cafeteria of this movement family. But that’s just how I think: I always start by looking for relationships between anomalies since my instinct says that there will likely be one, especially with multiple coincidences (I believe that typically, a single coincidence can be random but multiple probably have some relationship, whether or not we can see it).

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by dannyp

You think? I’d wager that most people who buy a Rolex, wear it, take it off for two days, look down and see it still running/keeping time will just buckle it back on and call it a day.

I think you are right. I neglected the vast majority who are neither specialists nor Rolex watch enthusiasts.

[puckybadger]

Originally Posted by saxo3

I think you are right. I neglected the vast majority who are neither specialists nor Rolex watch enthusiasts.

That's me. How often is a good winding needed even if the watch is running?

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by puckybadger

that's me.

lol

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by puckybadger

How often is a good winding needed even if the watch is running?

For a healthy movement after a full winding (40+ full crown turns) you do not need to wind a 32xx caliber for weeks or months, if you wear the watch daily. I tested that for a period of 64 days, timekeeping was perfect.

See "How to obtain excellent timekeeping over a period of several months" thread:
https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...4&postcount=23

PS: of course it does not harm to wind your watch movement from time to time, but it is not mandatory for good timekeeping; rest position overnight and temperature are more important than frequent windings.

[puckybadger]

Originally Posted by saxo3

For a healthy movement after a full winding (40+ full crown turns) you do not need to wind a 32xx caliber for weeks or months, if you wear the watch daily. I tested that for a period of 64 days, timekeeping was perfect.

See "How to obtain excellent timekeeping over a period of several months" thread:
https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...4&postcount=23

PS: of course it does not harm to wind your watch movement from time to time, but it is not mandatory for good timekeeping; rest position overnight and temperature are more important than frequent windings.

Crown up for resting position. Right?

[Andad]

Originally Posted by puckybadger

Crown up for resting position. Right?

Why crown up?

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by puckybadger

Crown up for resting position. Right?

To achieve what?

In dial up and dial down positions most movements gain some time. For the 3up, 6up, and 9up rest positions gaining or losing depends on how a specific movement is regulated, no general rule applies.

[saxo3]

Here the description of another defect 3285 caliber (GMT Master II) purchased new in 2020:

"After testing in various positions, and having the amplitude drop below 200 and erratic timing of -5 to -20 spd … send it in for warranty service."

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=873526

[saxo3]

Interesting: a 2022 Rolex Submariner Ref. 124060 (3230 caliber) with low amplitudes sent in for repair:

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=878250

The introduction dates of all 32xx movements:
2015: 3235, 3255
2016: -
2017: -
2018: 3285
2019: -
2020: 3230

OP's watch was sold in 2022, either with a 2020, 2021 or 2022 caliber.

So Rolex has not solved ("permanent fix") the 32xx problem for the first 5, 6 or 7 years.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Interesting: a 2022 Rolex Submariner Ref. 124060 (3230 caliber) with low amplitudes sent in for repair:

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=878250

The introduction dates of all 32xx movements:
2015: 3235, 3255
2016: -
2017: -
2018: 3285
2019: -
2020: 3230

OP's watch was sold in 2022, either with a 2020, 2021 or 2022 caliber.

So Rolex has not solved ("permanent fix") the 32xx problem for the first 5, 6 or 7 years.

I'm not convinced that one is the same issue, since he said that his was running exactly the same from time of purchase.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by dannyp

I'm not convinced that one is the same issue, since he said that his was running exactly the same from time of purchase.

I am convinced it is the same issue.

JMGoodnight 369 wrote: "Anyhoo they took the watch back to regulate and about 15 minutes came out with the bad news that it suffers from the low amplitude virus that’s been going around."

OP's description (in the other thread) fits very well with what I measured (timegrapher) for my 32xx and wrote in this thread (2963):

A "special feature" of the 32xx movement is that the caliber can remain very accurate for a long time (several months), even with rather low amplitudes, before its accuracy deteriorates and you can no longer compensate by rest position. The key indicator is then a too low amplitude after full winding.

The only interesting part (in the other thread) is the fact that the OP reports a 3230 issue for a new watch sold this year.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by saxo3

I am convinced it is the same issue.

JMGoodnight 369 wrote: "Anyhoo they took the watch back to regulate and about 15 minutes came out with the bad news that it suffers from the low amplitude virus that’s been going around."

OP's description (in the other thread) fits very well with what I measured (timegrapher) for my 32xx and wrote in this thread (2963):

A "special feature" of the 32xx movement is that the caliber can remain very accurate for a long time (several months), even with rather low amplitudes, before its accuracy deteriorates and you can no longer compensate by rest position. The key indicator is then a too low amplitude after full winding.

The only interesting part (in the other thread) is the fact that the OP reports a 3230 issue for a new watch sold this year.

Fair. But I'd argue that he only caught the problem by accident, since the sudden drop-off in timekeeping is what alerts most people to it. He said that over the ten months he'd had it, it had been consistently at -4.

Also, you can take some comfort in knowing that there is NO WAY that watch was manufactured this year. I don't know what the lag time is between finishing in Switzerland and sale elsewhere, but if it's ten months old, he only got it in January.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by saxo3

A "special feature" of the 32xx movement is that the caliber can remain very accurate for a long time (several months), even with rather low amplitudes, before its accuracy deteriorates and you can no longer compensate by rest position. The key indicator is then a too low amplitude after full winding.

.

I agree with this and believe it is exactly the situation my 2020 Sub41 is in. From day one the timekeeping has been great for the first 50 hours of power reserve, yet the amplitude is low at full wind and below spec at 24 hours.

I've owned it nearly two years but it has probably only been worn/running (I don't use winders) for a total of 2-3 months.

[MikeyV]

Mine is running like crap lately - losing 10-15 seconds a day - no matter what I do.

My warranty is up next June - I guess I'm gonna send it in AGAIN for the same problem.

I have no hope that the fix will be permanent. Maybe when it breaks in two more years and I have to pay to fix it - they'll have a solution.

:)

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by MikeyV

Mine is running like crap lately - losing 10-15 seconds a day - no matter what I do.

My warranty is up next June - I guess I'm gonna send it in AGAIN for the same problem.

I have no hope that the fix will be permanent. Maybe when it breaks in two more years and I have to pay to fix it - they'll have a solution.

:)

has it been in before? Is the watch sentimental? If my DJ goes bad again and has to go back to RSC for a third time I'm likely to sell it =(

The thing is it's been doing very well after the second visit, mid Dec will be the 1 year anniversary of it's 2nd repair. I'll record and post data for that.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Fair. But I'd argue that he only caught the problem by accident, since the sudden drop-off in timekeeping is what alerts most people to it.

I fully agree with you, if he would not have gone to the AD, who measured low amplitudes with their timegrapher, he would not have seen any sign of change.

Originally Posted by dannyp

He said that over the ten months he'd had it, it had been consistently at -4.

That is exactly my point, timekeeping remained constant for his 124060 Submariner, and he was blind (without any instrumentation) to see that the 3230 movement amplitudes decreased rather quickly (in about 10 months). Only the AD could see this on his timegrapher.

The 32xx decrease in amplitudes - I do not speak about the normal reduction of amplitude during the 72 hours of power reserve but compare max. achievable amplitudes after a full winding - is much quicker compared (for example) to the 31xx movements. That is the main reason why many owners cannot see that their movement is sick because timekeeping remains very good for a rather long time, even if amplitudes of only about 200 degrees are reached after full winding. As soon as the amplitudes decrease further, let's say to 180 degrees (I have timegrapher data to demonstrate this) then timekeeping starts to degrade significantly and everybody can see the movement problems because the watch loses more and more time. This can develop rather fast (a few weeks or months). Such a fast degrading behaviour I have never seen with other calibers.

Originally Posted by dannyp

Also, you can take some comfort in knowing that there is NO WAY that watch was manufactured this year. I don't know what the lag time is between finishing in Switzerland and sale elsewhere, but if it's ten months old, he only got it in January.

Nobody here can know when this 3230 was assembled and tested, any time in 2020 or 2021.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by saxo3

I fully agree with you, if he would not have gone to the AD, who measured low amplitudes with their timegrapher, he would not have seen any sign of change.

That is exactly my point, timekeeping remained constant for his 124060 Submariner, and he was blind (without any instrumentation) to see that the 3230 movement amplitudes decreased rather quickly (in about 10 months). Only the AD could see this on his timegrapher.

The 32xx decrease in amplitudes - I do not speak about the normal reduction of amplitude during the 72 hours of power reserve but compare max. achievable amplitudes after a full winding - is much quicker compared (for example) to the 31xx movements. That is the main reason why many owners cannot see that their movement is sick because timekeeping remains very good for a rather long time, even if amplitudes of only about 200 degrees are reached after full winding. As soon as the amplitudes decrease further, let's say to 180 degrees (I have timegrapher data to demonstrate this) then timekeeping starts to degrade significantly and everybody can see the movement problems because the watch loses more and more time. This can develop rather fast (a few weeks or months). Such a fast degrading behaviour I have never seen with other calibers.

Nobody here can know when this 3230 was assembled and tested, any time in 2020 or 2021.

I might have said AD failed to fully wind before testing, but looks like this was RSC, and I doing that mistake would be made.