32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[77T]

By academic I meant no slight on Rolex - it’s simply notional.

What this means is at worst -2/+2, in any given day, the accuracy is 0.999976851851852

At the worst COSC, the accuracy is 0.999930555555556

How much that illusory difference matters in the 86,400 seconds in any given day is in the eye of the beholder.

For me it is not significant…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[77T]

Agree - for me in some modes, accuracy to the second is paramount. For those weekends, the Rolex, Omega, Patek, stay home. It is the Apple Ultra watch that lasts all weekend and never loses a second in a year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Vince_76]

Wore my 3235 for 13 days straight on holiday. Lost 22 seconds so ~-1.7s/day

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Vince_76

Wore my 3235 for 13 days straight on holiday. Lost 22 seconds so ~-1.7s/day

You tried to compensate overnight or wore it 24/7?

[Vince_76]

Originally Posted by saxo3

You tried to compensate overnight or wore it 24/7?

Nope, face up every night ~8hrs

[Easy E]

126619LB Post Service
Most definitely different, seems strong

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Easy E

126619LB Post Service
Most definitely different, seems strong

Thanks for sharing.
It's easier to see the relationship between low amplitude and slower timekeeping.

As these Chronergy escapement movements start out with lower amplitudes than is historically generally accepted to be ideal. They start out at a fundamental disadvantage with little room for some natural degradation.
Unless this is addressed by the mothership I can't see the
historical timekeeping record being particularly stellar which must be problematic against the backdrop of the much lauded 10 year service intervals and the "Superlative Chronometer" standard

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Easy E

126619LB Post Service
Most definitely different, seems strong

Good to see some more data.

Here my comparison between July and September 2023.

- After Repair:
- All amplitudes are very good (high) after full winding and within specs after 24 hours.

- The 5-position average rate (X) is within -2/+2 s/d even 48 hours after full winding, which is excellent.

[georgew]

wore my 124060 for 5 days recently - and it lost 15 seconds over that time period. For comparison, my 116622 YM gained 6 seconds over the last 2 days I wore it.

edited to add that it stays on my wrist 24/7 unless I am in the shower.

[georgew]

Originally Posted by georgew

wore my 124060 for 5 days recently - and it lost 15 seconds over that time period. For comparison, my 116622 YM gained 6 seconds over the last 2 days I wore it.

edited to add that it stays on my wrist 24/7 unless I am in the shower.

I need to correct this post, as it should read wore for 15 days (and it lost 15 secs)

[TheVTCGuy]

So… Stupid question:

Chronometer = COSC -4+6

Superlative Chronometer = +- 2 ?

[padi56]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

So… Stupid question:

Chronometer = COSC -4+6

Superlative Chronometer = +- 2 ?

COSC tested to a AVERAGE of -4+6 seconds at time of testing met said spec.

The new superlative test to precision -2+2 seconds at time of testing met said spec.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by padi56

COSC tested to a AVERAGE of -4+6 seconds at time of testing met said spec.

The new superlative test to precision -2+2 seconds at time of testing met said spec.

Thanks PADI

So, serious question, maybe I am not understanding it correctly (heck I am SURE I am not understanding it correctly) but could there be a bias in the measuring because of the new standard? I know I’m not explaining this correctly but if the time accuracy requirement is an average, and it has to meet those standards over a certain number of days… If you take a measurement for a minute or whatever on a machine, does that accurately express the accuracy of the mechanism over the average of several days? Is it possible that measuring it one day the watch is showing particularly off-rate, but over the span of several days it would average out to be within the +-2 standard?

I am sure I am not explaining this very well, I think I just confused myself more then when I started the paragraph.

Nothing to see here, carry on.

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Thanks PADI

So, serious question, maybe I am not understanding it correctly (heck I am SURE I am not understanding it correctly) but could there be a bias in the measuring because of the new standard? I know I’m not explaining this correctly but if the time accuracy requirement is an average, and it has to meet those standards over a certain number of days… If you take a measurement for a minute or whatever on a machine, does that accurately express the accuracy of the mechanism over the average of several days? Is it possible that measuring it one day the watch is showing particularly off-rate, but over the span of several days it would average out to be within the +-2 standard?

I am sure I am not explaining this very well, I think I just confused myself more then when I started the paragraph.

I would think that absolutely there would be a variance, but that variance would likely only be tenths of a second at most. A couple of issues: To test, or factory certify the movement it would have to be fully wound, wait 24hrs, fully wind wait 24hrs, and so on. How many data points would be needed to get the average? IDK, but seems like too many to be worth the effort. Also, as in the case of my pre-serviced WG sub at the 3 up position to get the average back to base line the next 24 hr reading would have to be +12. I seem to recall reading somewhere that there is a maximum delta between any measurement in any position. I would also think temperature would have an impact on the results. So how many different temps at what extremes would you have to test to get the average?

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by Easy E

I would think that absolutely there would be a variance, but that variance would likely only be tenths of a second at most. A couple of issues: To test, or factory certify the movement it would have to be fully wound, wait 24hrs, fully wind wait 24hrs, and so on. How many data points would be needed to get the average? IDK, but seems like too many to be worth the effort. Also, as in the case of my pre-serviced WG sub at the 3 up position to get the average back to base line the next 24 hr reading would have to be +12. I seem to recall reading somewhere that there is a maximum delta between any measurement in any position. I would also think temperature would have an impact on the results. So how many different temps at what extremes would you have to test to get the average?

Thank you Easy


Like every other bit of technical discussion on this thread that went right over my head. I was just wondering if the issue was not so much the new movement but rather the new standard, and the testing for such a strict and limited tolerance. Remembering back to my college physics days (which was around the time the pyramids were being built) there was some law about the more strict the tolerance, the more bias there is in the testing procedure towards failure; or something like that.

I have no idea if it has anything to do with this situation but I guess anything is possible.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by padi56

COSC tested to a AVERAGE of -4+6 seconds at time of testing met said spec.

The new superlative test to precision -2+2 seconds at time of testing met said spec.

We need to be mindful that COSC is the movement alone.
Superlative is for the accuracy of the watch with the movement cased up, which is significantly more problematic.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by Dirt

We need to be mindful that COSC is the movement alone.
Superlative is for the accuracy of the watch with the movement cased up, which is significantly more problematic.

Why is that significantly more problematic?

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Andad

Why is that significantly more problematic?

Have to agree Eddie the bare uncased movements are still tested at the Swiss COSC to get the Swiss chronometer certification. Rolex then retests with movement it its case considering the amount of watches they sell each year. Plus the amount movements they test annually at the COSC they must have some sort of machine like they got at the COSC to test them in the case. Otherwise would take ages to manually adjust and test each and every movement. As according to some when they send watches in for regulation it often takes weeks to do. And cannot see why it would be more problematic in the case or not as long as its been regulated and passed test at time of testing. .

[TheVTCGuy]

Sorry, double post

[Easy E]

Thanks for the graph. That really demonstrates the before v after service changes.

[Easy E]

As a side note, I have it my head that JLC does testing for each movement in their Master Control line for one month.

[Easy E]

All proceeds are being donated to the Jr Mensa Society

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by Easy E

All proceeds are being donated to the Jr Mensa Society

Then FOR SURE I won't get any

[enjoythemusic]

The first-year release CHNR is back from service, which i must say was done in a fast four to five weeks. She had amplitude problems, which of course affected accuracy...

Today, after about 20 hours of wear, she is a SOLID and stable 260-ish amplitude in various positions on my Timegrapher. Whatever the situation was, it's been solved and accuracy is excellent as expected with Rolex too :)

Look, i get it gentlemen. It can be a bummer yet it is serviceable. That's one of the benefits of a mechanical timepiece. Rolex is taking care of this under warranty and in a timely manner. Color me very happy.

As a side note, over the decades have chatted with a wide variety of luxury goods companies. RSC has always, in ALL ways, been excellent. If RSC is reading this, please be sure to thank the watchmaker(s) who worked on my CHNR. Many thanks.

PS: Have done this previously with watchmakers over the years... I'd be happy to buy lunch / dinner for the watchmaker(s) who worked on my CHNR. They earned it

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

The first-year release CHNR is back from service, which i must say was done in a fast four to five weeks. She had amplitude problems, which of course affected accuracy...

Today, after about 20 hours of wear, she is a SOLID and stable 260-ish amplitude in various positions on my Timegrapher.

Thanks; it would be nice to see timegrapher data after full winding and after 24 h.

Out of curiosity: did vote vote in the poll? If yes, what did you chose?

[goodolejr]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

The first-year release CHNR is back from service, which i must say was done in a fast four to five weeks. She had amplitude problems, which of course affected accuracy...

Today, after about 20 hours of wear, she is a SOLID and stable 260-ish amplitude in various positions on my Timegrapher. Whatever the situation was, it's been solved and accuracy is excellent as expected with Rolex too :)

Look, i get it gentlemen. It can be a bummer yet it is serviceable. That's one of the benefits of a mechanical timepiece. Rolex is taking care of this under warranty and in a timely manner. Color me very happy.

As a side note, over the decades have chatted with a wide variety of luxury goods companies. RSC has always, in ALL ways, been excellent. If RSC is reading this, please be sure to thank the watchmaker(s) who worked on my CHNR. Many thanks.

PS: Have done this previously with watchmakers over the years... I'd be happy to buy lunch / dinner for the watchmaker(s) who worked on my CHNR. They earned it

What about when problem reappears but the warranty has lapsed?

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by goodolejr

What about when problem reappears but the warranty has lapsed?

Then you pay for the service, unfortunately.

[steubi1]

It will be interesting when the new Daytonas are out, if they show similar symptoms with the Chronergy escapement...

[enjoythemusic]

Vote... Can't recall.

Will do on readings... around Sunday or so. Let's give her a few days of daily wear.

[Easy E]

Thanks for the update. My 619LB was exactly a month to the day. It’s currently running great. All in all one month is tolerable, but that is the second one I have sent in this year.